RE: Capturing Noah's Goal - Framework Description for Nov 5


The only place I can find the wording you refer to online is in a message
Glen sent to the WG just ahead of the September F2F [1].

I think that what happened was that this and [2] were merged on someone's PC
at the f2f, transferred to floppy and printed at the reception desk. I don't
think the merged version ever made it onto the Web. It's a pity this text
'fell-off-the-web' I like it too.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen []
> Sent: 03 November 2001 16:53
> To: Mountain, Highland M; David Fallside (E-mail)
> Cc: Oisin Hurley; Hugo Haas; Glen Daniels;;
>; Mark Nottingham; Noah Mendelsohn;;
> Mark A. Jones (E-mail);; Stuart' 'Williams (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Capturing Noah's Goal - Framework Description for Nov 5
> I have some of the same concerns as Glen but taking a step back, I am
> somewhat confused as to how this text relates to the text that we
> presented at the f2f (included as I can't find it online anywhere,
> sorry):
> "SOAP provides a simple messaging framework with a core set of
> functionality. As part of communicating between SOAP nodes it may be
> necessary to introduce a variety of abstract features generally
> associated with the exchange of messages in a protocol environment.
> Although SOAP poses no constraints on the potential scope of such
> features, typical examples include "reliability", "security",
> "correlation", and "routing".
> In some cases, underlying protocols are equipped with native 
> mechanisms
> for providing certain features, in whole or in part (for example,
> message queueing systems typically provide a degree of reliability).
> The SOAP Transport Binding Framework provides some flexibility in the
> way that particular features can be expressed: Features can 
> be expressed
> entirely within the SOAP envelope (as blocks), outside the envelope
> (typically in a manner that is specific to the underlying 
> protocol), or
> as a combination of such expressions. It is up to the communicating
> nodes to decide how best to express particular features; often when a
> binding-level implementation for a particular feature is available,
> utilizing it when appropriate will provide for optimized processing."
> I apologize if I have missed something but I thought we had something
> resembling consensus on this but now I can't find this text in the
> current binding document anymore [1]?
> Henrik
> [1]
> 	 -----Original Message-----
> 	From: 	Mountain, Highland M
> [] 
> 	Sent:	Friday, November 02, 2001 14:24
> 	To:	David Fallside (E-mail)
> 	Cc:	'Oisin Hurley'; 'Hugo Haas'; 'Glen Daniels';
> ''; ''; 'Mark 
> Nottingham'; 'Noah
> Mendelsohn'; ''; 'Mark A. Jones (E-mail)';
> ''; Stuart' 'Williams (E-mail); Henrik 
> Frystyk Nielsen
> 	Subject:	 Capturing Noah's Goal - Framework Description
> for Nov 5
> 	Importance:	High
> 	David,
> 	FWIW, we have this text for Monday's meeting :  
> 	Any binding specification has a set of messaging requirements.
> Some of these requirements could be satisfied by the underlying
> protocol's native feature set.  Other requirements may need to be
> provided outside of the underlying protocol. The requirements not
> provided natively by the underlying protocol of choice will need to be
> expressed in the resulting binding specification.  These requirements
> will be expressed as features and associated properties.  SOAP nodes
> will have to determine which resident modules satisfy the features
> outside the scope of the underlying protocol, in order to be compliant
> with a given binding specification.  
> 	The last statement is where we need to arrive at a common
> understanding.  
> 	Talk to you Monday.
> 	Highland

Received on Monday, 5 November 2001 12:36:01 UTC