W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms@w3.org > April 2005

Re: Misc editorial

From: Jose Kahan <jose.kahan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 16:48:31 +0200
To: Tommy Lindberg <tommy.lindberg@gmail.com>
Cc: www-xkms@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050408144831.GD31009@rakahanga.inrialpes.fr>
Hi Tommy,

On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 04:57:44PM +0100, Tommy Lindberg wrote:
> 
> >> could replace it with text similar to "The XKMS service notifies the
> >> client about the completion of the request processing using the
> >> notification mechanism specified in the <PendingNotification> element
> >> in the initial request".
> 
> >I like this text. If there are no objections, I'll make the modification
> >tomorrow.
> 
> You may want adjust it to reflect the fact that <PendingNotification>
> is optional i.e. it may not be present and that the service therefore
> uses an out of band notification mechanism.

I need some further input from you :) I talked with Shivaram last night
and he agreed we should change this one. However, he notes that this is an
example, so we should complete it.

First I have a question. I couldn't find this in the spec. When the client
gets back a ResultMajor Pending, but didn't propose any
PendingNotificationMechanism, how does it know what it has to do (which in
this case seems to be that it needs to poll the server until it
get backs a reply other than ResultMajor Pending). If this is the case and
this is not in the spec., maybe we should add it.

Now for the example. I think that we either need two examples or a single
one. Right now, this example is misleading in that there's no
PendingNotification element, but 2.5.3.3 (regardless of its actual
content) gives the idea there somehow was a notifcation. If this is the
case, we should add a <PendingNotification> element to 2.5.3.1.
And then, we should update the text of 2.5.3.3 so that it reflects
something accordingly to the Identifier of the PendingNotification,
element.

I'd like to have your help here for describing, e.g., what you did in your
own server, when using:

    <km:PendingNotification Mechanism="urn:ietf:rfc:2616" 
              Identifier="http://notify.example.com/bob"/>

This way we can have a real example. This doesn't keep us from updating
the text to tell again that the content of the notification request and
how it actually happens is out of scope of this spec. (From my
understanding, the client tells the server it can contact it at that URL
to send its notification).

If we want an example where there's no <PendingNotification> in the
initial request, we can just substitute the content of 2.5.3.3 by 
"The client waits some instants before polling the server."

If we want both examples, we can add them. It won't be a problem. We just
need to agree on what we want :)

Comments?

-jose

Received on Friday, 8 April 2005 14:48:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:31:43 UTC