- 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