W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > July 2002

FW: QA WG Review of the XML Protocol SOAP 1.2 specification

From: Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:11:28 -0700
Message-ID: <B3F0DACD72892E4DB7E8296C6C9FC2F605AD7A84@red-msg-03.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
Cc: <fallside@us.ibm.com>, <qa-chairs@w3.org>, "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>, <carine@w3.org>
Forwarding to xmlp-comments, the detailed results of my review of the 4
SOAP 1.2 documents [1-4] on behalf of the QA WG.  The review is done
using the draft of the QA WG Specification Guidelines [5].




-----Original Message-----
From: Kirill Gavrylyuk 
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 1:49 AM
To: 'fallside@us.ibm.com'
Cc: 'lofton@rockynet.com'; 'karl@w3.org'; qa-chairs@w3.org
Subject: RE: QA WG Review of the XML Protocol SOAP 1.2 specification


Hi David,


Here are the detailed results of my review of the 4 documents [1-4] on
behalf of the QA WG. I apologize for sending them late for the reasons
stated previously. Hope the issues raised below will be still


Attached you may find the analysis document for SOAP 1.2 specification
against the checkpoints from the draft of the QA Specification
Guidelines [5]. Note the "Not satisfied" checkpoints, issues are
summarized below.


As I noted in my previous message, overall I find the SOAP 1.2
specification parts [1-3] to be in a good condition from testability
point of view, especially coupled with the "Assertions and Test
Collection" [4].


Nevertheless, there are several issues that I find to be critical, and
that could be easily fixed:


1.    There is no dedicated Scope section that would explain what is in
scope and what is explicitly left out of scope of the specification. 

2.    There is no dedicated Conformance section that would 

o       Define what is the object of the spec (SOAP Processor) and what
is it.

o       when an implementation could claim conformance to the SOAP 1.2
spec, and what does it mean.

o       clearly state that Part I is obligatory and any adjunct from the
Part II is optional. What combinations of the adjuncts in Part II are

o       State explicitly, does the implementation of the Part I that
does not use any of the adjunct of the Part II still conform to the SOAP
1.2 specification.

3.    Embedded in the issue 2. Not clear if the implementation is
required to implement any of the adjuncts from the Part 2 in order to
conform to the SOAP 1.2 specification. 

4.    Embedded in the issue 2. Not defined what can be called a "SOAP

5.    For some of the multiple-choice assertions, it is not explicitly
defined whether the choice must be consistent by the SOAP Node or not.
For example, in the section 2.4, assertion regarding mustUnderstand SOAP
headers that allows to either process the Header marked as
MustUnderstand or generate a Fault message. It is not clear under which
circumstances the behavior of the SOAP Node MUST remain consistent.


Let me know if you have any questions. I'll be back from vacation August
6th, checking email infrequently. In my absence, Lofton could answer
your questions regarding the QA Specification Guidelines.


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part0-20020626/ 

[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part1-20020626/ 

[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part2-20020626/ 

[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-testcollection-20020626/ 

[5] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qaframe-spec




Received on Wednesday, 31 July 2002 13:12:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:59 UTC