RE: [Bug 6730] Transfer: Redundant SOAP Processing Advice

Yes, that is right. Thanks for spotting it!

From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 6:49 PM
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: RE: [Bug 6730] Transfer: Redundant SOAP Processing Advice


Hey Ram,
  thanks for this.  In looking thru the spec I think one more spot was missed, the 4th paragraph under PutResponse. I think removing this would be consistent with the removal of the text we're removing under the other operations.  What do you think?

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.

Ram Jeyaraman <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org

04/08/2009 09:32 PM

To

"public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>

cc

Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, Bob Freund <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>, "david.Snelling@UK.Fujitsu.com" <david.Snelling@UK.Fujitsu.com>, "member-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <member-ws-resource-access@w3.org>, "member-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org" <member-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org>, "public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org>

Subject

RE: [Bug 6730] Transfer: Redundant SOAP Processing Advice







> [NEW] ACTION: Ram to consolidate 6730 proposals for consideration next time [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-ws-ra-minutes.html#action01]

Per AI from the previous meeting, please find attached the final proposal.

From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 6:34 PM
To: Ram Jeyaraman
Cc: Bob Freund; david.Snelling@UK.Fujitsu.com; member-ws-resource-access@w3.org; member-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org; public-ws-resource-access@w3.org; public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 6730] Transfer: Redundant SOAP Processing Advice


Ram wrote:
...
> 1. Section 3.1
>
> The sentence
>
> "Implementations may respond with a fault message using the standard
> fault codes
> defined in WS-Addressing (e.g., wsa:ActionNotSupported). Other
> components of the outline above are not further constrained by this
> specification."
>
> should not be removed.

Why? This really doesn't say anything other than "Hey, you may fault
for some reason". Isn't this true of all message in all WS-* specs?
Why does this need it?

> 2. Section 3.2
>
> The sentence
>
> "In addition to the standard fault codes defined in WS-Addressing,
> implementations MAY use the fault code wst:InvalidRepresentation if
> the presented representation is invalid for the target resource. See
> 5 Faults. Other components of the outline above are not further
> constrained by this
> specification."
>
> should not be removed.

I agree that the part about InvalidRepresentation probably should
remain but I think the WSA part can be dropped since, like above,
that just normal stuff.  So, how about just:

Implementations MAY use the fault code wst:InvalidRepresentation if
the presented representation is invalid for the target resource. See
5 Faults. Other components of the outline above are not further
constrained by this specification.

> In addition to Dave's proposal plus the suggested changes above, I
> suggest the following:
>
> 1. A few paragraphs in section 3.3 (Delete) need to be removed:
>
> "Extension specifications MAY define extensions to the Delete
> request, enabled by OPTIONAL header values, which
> specifically control preconditions for the Delete to succeed and
> which may control the nature or format of the response. Since the
> response may not be sent to the original sender, extension
> specifications should consider
> adding a corresponding SOAP header value in the response to signal
> to the receiver that the extension is being
> used."
>
> "Specifications which define extensions for use in the original
> Delete request which control the format of the
> response MUST allow processing the Delete message without such extensions."

+1

> 2. A few paragraphs in section 4.1 (Create) need to be removed:
>
> "Extensions specifications MAY also define extensions to the
> original Create request, enabled by OPTIONAL SOAP
> headers, which constrain the nature of the response, as discussed in
> remarks on the CreateResponse below.Similarly,
> they may require headers which control the interpretation of the
> wst:Create as part of the resource creation
> process."
>
> "Such specifications MUST also allow processing the Create message
> without such extensions."
>

+1

-Doug[attachment "6730 - Amended proposal.doc" deleted by Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM]