RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221

Boy, it would be SO much easier if we just said;

'This specification defines no processing model for Processing
Instruction Information Items that might appear in SOAP messages.'

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: 24 August 2002 23:31
> To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
> Cc: Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: 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 Sunday, 25 August 2002 21:03:22 UTC