- From: John Ibbotson <john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:51:01 +0000
- To: undisclosed-recipients:;
- To: "Gaertner, Dietmar" <Dietmar.Gaertner@softwareag.com>
- Cc: "'jacek@systinet.com'" <jacek@systinet.com>, "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Dietmar,
Comments inline below. They will appear in the next draft once I get
another example contributed.
John
"Gaertner, Dietmar"
<Dietmar.Gaertner@soft To: John Ibbotson/UK/IBM@IBMGB
wareag.com> cc: "'jacek@systinet.com'" <jacek@systinet.com>, "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'"
<xml-dist-app@w3.org>
03/05/2002 04:44 PM Subject: SOAP 1.2 Usage Scenarios
Please respond to
"Gaertner, Dietmar"
Hi John,
at the F2F in Mandelieu Jacek an I (replacing DavidF) took an action item
to review the Usage Scenarios. Following is my review summary; Jacek
will provide his in a later reply.
Regards, Dietmar.
---
- title "XML Protocol Usage Scenarios" --> "SOAP 1.2 Usage Scenarios" ?
<jbi> changed </jbi>
- The described usage scenarios are very good and cover a lot of
reasonable application scenarios.
<jbi>Thanks</jbi>
- There are a few other usage scenarios which I could imagine would
fit well into the list. My favorites are scenarios with intelligent
intermediaries which are capable of doing transformations of the
message content and/or do content based routing.
<jbi>The Usage Scenario document only addresses the scenarios we
identified
during the requirements gathering process. I realise there are MANY more
!</jbi>
- the numbering scheme for the senarios is not consistent (or else
it is not clear what the scheme is):
S1-S8, S10, S11, S19-S21, S23, S805, S807, S810, DS17, DS24.
<jbi>Agree but it follows the convention in the requirements document for
Scenarios and Draft Scenarios. It was decided to keep the numbers in
spite of
them being out of sequence</jbi>
- many of the figures are indented too much or are too large,
such that they get cut off when printed in portrait format
<jbi>Changed the image sizes so that should be fixed in new version</jbi>
- section 2.3.2 text:
"... the processing application would generate the *a* document..."
<jbi>Done</jbi>
- section 2.5.2 text:
"... A Status Handler *on* registered..." - remove
"... and places it *in* the response..." - add
<jbi>Done</jbi>
- section 2.6.2 Example: encrypted SOAP message:
old SOAP-ENV prefix and schema used
mustUndestand="1" - change to "true"
EDNOTE there. Still required?
<jbi>Done and Ednote removed. Body is opaque in this example</jbi>
- root attribute: I guess that the F2F resolution of issue 78
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Mar/0002.html
requires to add root attributes all over the place in the
examples.
<jbi>Done</jbi>
- section 2.16.1 text:
"SOAP module" term not defined in the spec
"... >Cacheability..." - remove ">"
<jbi>Done</jbi>
- section 2.21.2 text:
"actor" --> role
"QoS" and "QOS" - make consistent, e.g. always "QoS"
<jbi>Done</jbi>
Received on Sunday, 17 March 2002 13:11:52 UTC