RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221

So, possibly it is the verb 'send' that is at the core of the issue?

If we were to change the resolution text to read something like:
        SOAP senders MUST NOT introduce PIIIs into the SOAP messages they 
send.
        SOAP receivers SHOULD generate a fault when receiving SOAP 
messages containing PIIIs.

I would also suggest adding back the original text:
        A SOAP receiver MUST ignore processing instruction information 
items in SOAP messages that it receives.
but I might suggest that it be tweaked to read:
        A SOAP receiver MUST ignore processing instruction information 
items in SOAP messages that it receives
        except for purposes of detection and subsequent generation of a 
fault.

This would absolve any intermediary from being required to strip out any 
PIs 
before forwarding and would preserve what I believe to be the original 
intent of the WG
which was following the "be conservative in what you send and liberal in 
what you receive"
principle. 

Thus,  a SOAP receiver (intermediary or ultimate recipient) would be 
conforming to the
spec if it simply ignored any PIIIs. It would also be conformant if it 
detected them and
generated a fault.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

xml-dist-app-request@w3.org wrote on 08/24/2002 06:31:16 PM:

> 
> 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.
> 
> 
>