W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2006

ROR proposal issue #1 (aka SC1)

From: <michael.mahan@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:50:12 -0800
Message-ID: <A5F46F7A688C084782E8C52B76368613025CB607@sdebe101.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

I took an action to explode the substantive comments on the ROR 
proposal individually out to the ML. This is one of three.

Thx, Mike 

----------------------------------------------------------------
Issue: Think it's perfectly fine if a SOAP response is returned 
on a 202 response. What's most important to indicate, I believe,  
is that because of the semantics of 202, that any SOAP envelope 
would not represent the results of processing the inbound SOAP 
message.  It only indicates an intermediate result, like an ack.
 
Target: Table 17 for status code 202 row

Commenter: Mark Baker

Proposed text:
From: "The request has been accepted, but no response envelope 
is provided. Any further application processing is beyond the 
scope of this use of the 6.2 SOAP Request-Response Message 
Exchange Pattern***."

To (1): "The request has been accepted, and any information that 
might be present in the response message, possibly including 
a SOAP envelope, does not represent the results of processing 
the request message. Any further application processing is 
beyond the scope of this use of the 6.2 SOAP Request-Response 
Message Exchange Pattern***." 

Disposition: We began debate on 3/29 telecon (2), decided to 
postpone decision due to the dependency on the 202/204 issue

Refs: 
(1) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Jan/0057.html
, para 4
(2)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2006Mar/att-0026
/2006-03-29-minutes.html
search for 'SC1'
Received on Friday, 31 March 2006 23:50:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:21 GMT