RE: mustUnderstand reformulation

I suggest that these sorts of clarifications are the types of things that 
we normally leave the discretion of the editorial team, and I am happy to 
leave it to them. 

I do agree that the word "correctly" in your #2 isn't quite right, but I 
think the point I am attempting to make is essential and could easily be 
lost:  the purpose of mustUnderstand is not to deal with any failures of 
the targeting mechanism.  It applies in the situation where a message is 
"correctly targeted", has been delivered to the intended point in the 
message path, the software at that point is correctly assuming its 
intended roles, but for some reason that software is not configured to 
provide functions that are essential to the correct processing of the 
message.  So, we need a pithy phrase that conveys all that.  I agree that 
my phrasing isn't quite dead on, but at least it was short and crisp.  I 
see that as one of the most crucial clauses in the formulation, and I 
suggest that the editorial team attempt to reformulate it in a manner that 
is clear and to the point  

Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

"Nilo Mitra (EMX)" <>
08/07/01 10:14 AM

        To:     "''" <>,
        Subject:        RE: mustUnderstand reformulation

Hello Noah: 
I have two comments on your joint reformulation for mU: 
1) Suggest replacing "endpoint" with "ultimate SOAP receiver" 
2) First part of first sentence of  proposed new second paragraph: 
> The SOAP mustUnderstand attribute is useful for detecting 
> situations in which required software is not available at a 
> node which has been correctly targeted; 
I think this sentence is a bit confusing, and seems to not quite fit with 
rest of the para which discusses what to do when the targeted node was 
never reached. 
If the node has been "correctly targeted" and "the required software is 
not available", 
then  section 4.2, second para seems quite clear that the node should not 
"process the SOAP 
message at all, and fail." 
I'm also a little concerned that the proposed *specification* text is 
from what must be done, or what must happen to guidelines/suggestions for 
how to deal 
(albeit interesting) situations. 
If this *part* of the first sentence were removed, and it started "It is 
not intended..", 
I don't think your points would be lost. 

> -----Original Message----- 
> From: [] 
> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 5:12 PM 
> To: 
> Subject: mustUnderstand reformulation 
> Glen Daniels and I were asked to propose a reformulation for 
> "mustUnderstand".  What follows is a first cut for review and 
> discussion by 
> the workgroup.  The reformulation also attempts to remove 
> overlap between 
> section 4.2.3 and the processing model stuff.  We did this in 
> parallel with 
> Mark Hadley's work on eliminating overlap, so we probably 
> unintentionally 
> duplicated some of his effort.  Presumably, the two 
> approaches can easily 
> be reconciled if the workgroup believes that our overall direction is 
> correct. 

Received on Friday, 10 August 2001 23:11:41 UTC