RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221

Well, I'm not so sure regarding the sender.  We don't really say anything 
about the steps leading to the preparation of the envelope.  We just say 
what is SHOULD/MUST/SHOULD NOT/MUST NOT contain.  I would rather not get 
into a two step description along the lines of:  you might erroneously put 
in a PI but then you should check to see whether you did.  I think we 
should just say:  senders MUST NOT send PIs,  Intermediaries  detect and 
remove PIs.  Receivers SHOULD fault when receiving PIs.  Note, however, 
that intermediaries MAY but need not detect (and fault) when a PI is 
received in a message to be relayed;  this dispensation is provided 
primarily to facilitate the implementation of high performance 
intermediaries in which such checking may be impractical.  Such 
intermediaries MAY relay PIs received in the inbound message (but MUST NOT 
introduce additional or altered PIs.)

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------







"Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
08/23/02 08:13 PM

 
        To:     <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
        cc:     <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
        Subject:        RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221


I agree with this but would also go further in stating that this seems
to apply to any SOAP sender, regardless of whether it is the initial
sender or an intermediary sender: for performance reasons, it would be
really bad for a sender to first go through the message and check for
PIs before sending.

If we want to say anything for PIs then I think it should be SHOULD.
FWIW, I would be happy not to say anything.

Henrik

>My strong feeling is that intermediaries should not be 
>required to do PI 
>checking in situations where performance makes such detection 
>a problem. I 
>agree with Gudge that requiring it for one purpose but not 
>another misses 
>the point.  So, if the resolution to 221 seems inconsistent 
>when viewed 
>from that perspective, then I think we need to get the WG to 
>clarify.  My 
>recollection was that our intention was that detection and 
>rejection in a 
>receiver was to be on a best effort basis, but I could be 
>wrong.  Thanks.

Received on Saturday, 24 August 2002 18:32:09 UTC