Re: [NEW ISSUE] granularity of MTOM policy assertion

Jean-Jacques, 

I realize that you may be on holiday, but I am just following up on this 
note as the WG is awaiting your
response,

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
phone: +1 508 234 2986

__________________

Jean-Jacques,

The XMLP WG has made a preliminary determination to close issue 4341 [1] 
and a couple other related issues
with no action. 

The WG felt that while it might be a more pure approach, we did not feel 
that there were compelling enough use cases
to add the complexity. Additionally, given the resolutions to issue 4506, 
we allow the use cases that
would have a SOAP request followed by an MTOM response when the assertion 
is either marked with
wsp:Optional, or when there are multiple alternatives present, some with 
and some without the 
MTOM assertion.

Before we close this issue, we would appreciate your feedback. If you can 
provide compelling use cases,
we would certainly like to understand them better.

Cheers,

[1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4341

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
phone: +1 508 234 2986

xml-dist-app-request@w3.org wrote on 02/20/2007 11:58:39 AM:

> 
> +1, we should be able to set the assertion at the message/operation 
> level (SOAP/WSDL terminology). Another example that comes to mind is 
> SOAP-Reponse, i.e. a GET/POST request followed by an MTOM response.
> 
> JJ.
> 
> Christopher B Ferris wrote:
> >
> > Title: granularity of MTOM policy assertion
> >
> > Description: The assertion requires all messages, regardless of 
> > whether there is binary content, to be sent as
> > application/xop+xml. Is this correct behavior? Shouldn't the assertion 

> > granularity be finer, e.g. such that a client
> > could send a SOAP request (application/soap+xml) and receive an MTOM 
> > response (application/xop+xml)
> > and vice-versa?
> >
> > Justification: seems odd at best to send xop serialized message even 
> > when there is no binary content.
> >
> > Type: technical
> >
> > Proposal:  TBD
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Christopher Ferris
> > STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
> > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> > blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
> > phone: +1 508 377 9295 
> 
>