Re: One-way messaging in SOAP 1.2

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>
To: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: One-way messaging in SOAP 1.2


> On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Christopher Ferris wrote:
>
> > Hmmm, Marc raises an interesting question/issue.
> >
> > We probably do need to be a bit more clear on the
> > subtle distinction between a transport-mep and an mep
> > (which is the application view of an mep). When
> > we say that one-way mep is required, do we mean
> > mep or transport-mep? It would seem to me that we mean
> > mep in this case, no? a one-way tmep may not
>
> I read it as mep and not transport mep, mep are described at the SOAP
> level, then the binding has to implement it with its own transport-mep,
> but it only a binding problem.
>
> > Of course, it would seem to me that the FSM description of
> > the HTTP binding would need to be reflective of use of the
> > one-way mep as well, at least to indicate that a 202 would
> > be expected as the result, etc.
>
> In the case of one way MEP using HTTP, the reply will be discarded, unless
> we know where to send faults.
>
> > NB, separate issue for editors: there seems to be an error here
> > and elsewhere in the part2 spec, the single-request-response
> > tmep URI shouldn't belong to the domain www.example.com, but rather
> > to the w3c.org domain, no? Isn't the HTTP binding intended to be
> > normative?
>
> The fact that a URI of an example is in the example.com domain or w3c.org
> domain don't change the normative/non-normative of the section, the
> constraint being that all URI in w3.org should be deferencable.
>
> --
> Yves Lafon - W3C
> "Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 12:41:34 UTC