Re: Issue #203 : First draft text

+1. Presumably, X woud be inserted between Section 3.1 and Section 3.2 [1].

Jean-Jacques.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part1.html#extensibility

Glen Daniels wrote:

> Here's a first cut at some text for the spec which moves towards resolving
> issue 203 [1].
>
> IN SECTION 3, PART 1:
>
> Add the following sentence to the end of the paragraph beginning "The SOAP
> Processing Model enables SOAP Nodes..."
>
> "A feature expressed as SOAP headers is known as a SOAP Module, and each Module
> should be specified according
> to the rules in section X" (where X is a new section somewhere)
>
> IN SECTION X:
>
> "A SOAP Module is a well-specified set of semantic extensions to the core
> protocol, expressed as SOAP headers.
>
> A Module specification:
>
> * MUST identify itself with a URI.  This enables the Module to be unambiguously
> referenced in description
>   languages or during negotiation.
>
> * MUST clearly and completely specify the content and semantics of the header
> blocks used to implement the
>   behavior in question, including if appropriate any modifications to the SOAP
> Processing Model.
>
> * MUST clearly specify any known interactions with other extensions in terms of
> semantics or sequence.
>   For example, we can imagine a Module which encrypts the body and inserts a
> header containing a checksum and
>   an indication of the encryption mechanism used.  The spec for such a Module
> must indicate that the decryption
>   algortihm on the receiving side must run prior to any Modules which rely on
> the contents of the body.
>
> * MAY indicate that the Module functions as an implementation of a SOAP Feature
> as defined in sec 3 of
>   part 1.  In this case, the spec must also clearly specify, if appropriate,
> the relationships between any
>   abstract properties defined in the feature spec (as described in sec 5 of
> part 2) and concrete instantiations
>   in the SOAP envelope."
>
> I think this needs some wordsmithing (I'm sending this from the middle of a WG
> meeting), but it's a start.  Comments / issues / questions appreciated!
>
> --Glen

Received on Thursday, 11 April 2002 09:00:46 UTC