- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:31:04 -0400
- To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Jean-Jacques (and Gudge): I like this table a lot, and I think the
"assumed" column adds greatly to its value. Regardless of what we think
of the merits of the proposal, this table helps to make clear exactly what
the proposal is, and that surely helps the discussion. I suggest we
document competing proposals (including the status quo) in similar form.
Depending on what we finally decide we want, it might be worth using a
table of this sort in the actual recommendation. Thanks!
------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
10/18/2002 03:42 AM
To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
cc: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
<henrikn@microsoft.com>, Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>,
XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should
stay
Gudge,
Good table. I think it is worth adding whether the role was
assumed or not. This is especially useful for user-defined roles
(such as "cacheManager").
I've updated the table accordingly.
|------------------------|----------------------------|
| Role | Header |
| | | Understood | |
| Name | Assumed |& Processed | Forwarded |
|--------------|---------|------------|---------------|
| | | Yes | No, unless |
| | | | reinserted |
| relay | Yes |------------|---------------|
| | | No | Yes |
|--------------|---------|------------|---------------|
| | | Yes | No, unless |
| | | | reinserted |
| next | Yes |------------|---------------|
| | | No | No |
|--------------|---------|------------|---------------|
| | | Yes | No, unless |
| | | | reinserted |
| | Yes |------------|---------------|
| | | No | No |
| user-defined |---------|------------|---------------|
| | No | n/a | Yes |
|--------------|---------|------------|---------------|
| | | Yes | n/a |
| ultimateRec. | Yes |------------|---------------|
| | | No | n/a |
|--------------|---------|------------|---------------|
| none | No | n/a | Yes |
|--------------|---------|------------|---------------|
Jean-Jacques.
Martin Gudgin wrote:
> |------------------|---------------------------|
> | Role | Header will be forwarded? |
> |------------------|---------------------------|
> | relay | Y | Maybe |
> | |---|-----------------------|
> | | N | Yes |
> |------------------|---|-----------------------|
> | next | Y | Maybe |
> | |---|-----------------------|
> | | N | No |
> |------------------|---|-----------------------|
> | ultimateReceiver | Y | Not applicable |
> | |---|-----------------------|
> | | N | Not applicable |
> |------------------|---|-----------------------|
> | none | Y | Yes |
> | |---|-----------------------|
> | | N | Yes |
> |------------------|---|-----------------------|
>
>
> The Y/N column indicates whether the SOAP node understands the
header
> block ( note this is independent of the value of
soap:mustUnderstand ).
>
>
> A 'Yes' indicates that the header will always be forwarded.
> A 'No' indicates that the header will never be forwarded.
> A 'Not applicable' means the forwarding never occurs.
> A 'Maybe' indicates that whether the header block is forwarded
or not
> depends on the spec for the header. I realise that this is not
*really*
> a 'forward' but rather a 're-insert'
>
> Does this help at all?
>
> Gudge
Received on Friday, 18 October 2002 10:34:07 UTC