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

Closing XML Protocol Last Call issue 384: Are gateways SOAP intermediaries?

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 21:45:37 -0800
Message-ID: <5C39F806F9939046B4B1AFE652500A3A0349FF35@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <xmlp-comments@w3.org>


Mark,

In response to issue 384 [2], the WG has decided to say that SOAP
gateways are not SOAP intermediaries and therefore not to introduce the
notion of a SOAP gateway into the SOAP spec. The reason is that a SOAP
intermediary is defined in terms of a SOAP receiver and a SOAP sender
which the WG did not associate with traditional gateway functionality.
The WG recognizes that there may be gateways at the level of underlying
protocols but the SOAP spec does not provide an architecture for talking
about such gateways (see also [1] (Member only)).

The WG agrees with your editorial suggestion and will fix the spec
accordingly.

I hope this resolution is satisfactory, otherwise please send your
concerns in a mail to xml-dist-app@w3.org including the issue number in
the subject.

Thanks,

Henrik

[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2002Oct/0082.htm
l
[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x384

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen 
>Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 10:23
>To: Mark Baker; xml-dist-app@w3.org
>Subject: RE: Are gateways SOAP intermediaries?
>
>
>
>Mark,
>
>The first question is of course what a gateway is but if we 
>strictly look at it from a SOAP node perspective, then I don't 
>think the SOAP spec has much to say about gateways. In 
>general, I think the answer to your question is no, gateways 
>are not SOAP intermediaries. One could imagine SOAP 
>intermediaries being underlying protocol gateways but that is, 
>I think a different question.
>
>Btw, I agree with your proposal:
>
>>P.S. section 2.1 redefines "SOAP intermediary" in the second
>>sentence of the first paragraph, differently than in section 
>>1.4.3.  I suggest it be removed from 2.1.
>
>Henrik
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
>>Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 11:37
>>To: xmlp-comments@w3.org
>>Subject: Are gateways SOAP intermediaries?
>>
>>
>>
>>The current definition of a SOAP intermediary says;
>>
>>  "A SOAP intermediary is both a SOAP receiver and a SOAP 
>sender and is
>>   targetable from within a SOAP message. It processes the SOAP header
>>   blocks targeted at it and acts to forward a SOAP message towards an
>>   ultimate SOAP receiver."
>>
>>"SOAP message path" is defined as;
>>
>>  "The set of SOAP nodes through which a single SOAP message passes.
>>   This includes the initial SOAP sender, zero or more SOAP
>>   intermediaries, and an ultimate SOAP receiver.
>>
>>"Ultimate SOAP receiver" includes this in its definition;
>>
>>  "An ultimate SOAP receiver cannot also be a SOAP 
>intermediary for the
>>   same SOAP message"
>>
>>The second definition suggests that the ultimate SOAP receiver
>>cannot itself be a SOAP intermediary.  The third point 
>>explicitly says this, though with the qualification "for the 
>>same SOAP message" (which is unclear).  But the first, in the 
>>first sentence, would seem to include gateways in its 
>>definition, as they meet all three criteria; SOAP receiver, 
>>SOAP sender, targettable.
>>
>>At this late stage, I'm only going to ask that the
>>specification be clear about how gateways fit, or don't, as 
>>the case may be.
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>P.S. section 2.1 redefines "SOAP intermediary" in the second
>>sentence of the first paragraph, differently than in section 
>>1.4.3.  I suggest it be removed from 2.1.
>>
>>(speaking only for myself)
>>
>>MB
>>--
>>Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
>>Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
>>http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 28 October 2002 00:46:16 GMT

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