[Issue 339-ml] Use of XKMS inside a SOAP 1.2 message

Hi Matt,

This is just a confirmation message for closing the decision cycle.

The comments you reported[1] were assigned issue id 339-ml.  The changes
you suggested were applied to the Editor's draft [2], with a slight
modification:

<quote>
[43] XKMS implementers shall use SOAP document style
request-response messaging with the XKMS messages defined in 
Part 1 carried as literal (not encoded) Body element content.
</quote>

I added (not encoded) as some people found "literal" ambiguous.

(And many thanks to Rich who made me see the light that unencoded
means not encoded and not uuencoded! Took me some time!)

Please reply to this message if you have any objections.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Drafts/pr-issues/issues.html#339-tl
[2]
http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Drafts/XKMS-REC-DRAFT/REC-DRAFT-xkms-part-2.html

Thanks,

-jose

On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 04:05:17PM -0000, Matt Long wrote:
> 
> Section 3.1.1  (SOAP Binding) See [1]
> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 
> "XKMS implementers shall use SOAP document style request-response messaging
> with the XKMS messages defined in Part 1 carried as unencoded Body element
> content. The SOAP 1.2 RPC representation, and requisite encoding style, are not
> used. The potential benefits of using the RPC representation do not justify the
> additional effort required to define a mapping from the Part 1 messages to an
> appropriate encoding style."
>  
> Suggest:
> XKMS implementers shall use SOAP document style request-response messaging with
> the XKMS messages defined in Part 1 carried as a literal Body element content.
>  
> Justification:
> It is unambiguously clear that the XKMS message is of document-literal form. 
> The semantic justification of why encoding was not selected is irrelevant.
>  
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xkms2-bindings/#XKMS_2_0_Section_3_1