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

Re: Transport Binding Reviews.

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 15:33:06 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F192B50@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Doug Davis'" <dug@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, "'xmlp-comments@w3.org'" <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
Dug,

In December you responded [1,2] to David Fallside's request [3] for feedback
on the transport binding framework that was being incorporated into Working
Drafts that were published in December [4,5].

As we work towards our next Working Draft I have been asked to let you know
how the WG has respond to your comments. It would be helpful if you could
let us know whether we have adequately addressed you comments by 10th May
2002 and if not what further action you would like the WG to take.

In [1] Doug Davis wrote:

> Just a few comments...
> ----
> The definition of features should be moved outside of this
> document and into the spec itself.  To have features mentioned
> only w.r.t. bindings and then to say features could include
> things like "correlation" which might not have anything to do
> with bindings could lead people to assume a link between the
> two that does not need to exists.  Features (or as I prefer
> them to be called "extensions") are not necessarily related
> to the binding (could be - but not required).
> ----
> "It is up to the communicating nodes to decide how best to
> express particular features".
> This isn't correct - the binding specification decides how best
> to express the features - the communicating nodes decide which
> binding to use - but once the binding is picked the nodes
> are not free to express features in some random fashion.
> ----
> 
> -Dug

On the first comment, in recent Editors snapshots, the concept of properties
and features have been given much wider scope than being confined to
describing capabilities of bindings, see [6].

With respect to the second comment, the last paragraph of [6] places the
responsibility on a binding specification to state how the features it
supports should be expressed:

<quote>
Certain features may require end-to-end as opposed to hop-to-hop processing
semantics. While the SOAP Protocol Binding Framework provides for the
possibility that such features may be expressed outside the SOAP envelope,
it does not define a specific architecture for the processing or error
handling of these externally expressed features by a SOAP intermediary. A
binding specification that expresses such features external to the SOAP
envelope should define its own processing rules to which a SOAP node is
expected to conform (for example, describing what information must be passed
along with the SOAP message as it leaves the intermediary). 
</quote>

In [2] Doug Davis wrote:

> Trying to follow all of the docs on this... I replaced your
> (a)/[1] with Henrik's.  What is the [4] you point to?
>
http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/11/20/SOAP_Transport_Binding_Framework.htm
l
> seems to be a dup (or old version) of (a)/[1] ?
> -Dug

The reference you asked about was one of a number of sources that
contributed to the new sections in the spec [6,7].

Best regards

Stuart
--
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/0036.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/0037.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Nov/0272.html
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part1-20011217/
[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part2-20011217/

[6] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part1.html#soapfeature
[7] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part2.html#soapfeatspec
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2002 10:34:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:27 GMT