Re: Initial formulation of intermediary semantics for MTOM

This looks good to me. Maybe one additional point would be to cover 
active intermediaries, i.e. can it optimize someelse's header block?

Sorry for the late reply; just catching up with email.

Jean-Jacques.

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

> I took an action item af the France f2f to formulate a proposal for
> intermediary handling of MTOM.  This note is in fulfillment of that action.
> What I've written here is the rough outline of a direction.  The proposal
> is as follows.  All section numbers are with respect to the MTOM WD at [1]:
> 
> <current fromSection="Introduction">
> The usage of the Abstract Transmission Optimization Feature is a hop-by-hop
> contract between a SOAP node and the next SOAP node in the SOAP message
> path, providing no normative convention for optimization of SOAP
> transmission through intermediaries.
> </current>
> <proposed forSection="Introduction">
> The usage of the Abstract Transmission Optimization Feature is a hop-by-hop
> contract between a SOAP node and the next SOAP node in the SOAP message
> path, providing no mandatory convention for optimization of SOAP
> transmission through intermediaries.   The feature does provide optional
> means by which binding implementations MAY choose to facilitate the
> efficient passthrough of optimized data contained within headers or bodies
> relayed by an intermediary.
> </proposed>
> 
> <current fromSection="2.4.3 Transmitting a Message">
> The usage of the Abstract Transmission Optimization Feature is a hop-by-hop
> contract between a SOAP node and the next SOAP node in the SOAP message
> path. Therefore, no specific rules exist for a SOAP intermediary
> implementing the Abstract Transmission Optimization Feature.
> </current>
> <proposed  forSection="2.4.3 Transmitting a Message">
> The usage of the Abstract Transmission Optimization Feature is a hop-by-hop
> contract between a SOAP node and the next SOAP node in the SOAP message
> path. Therefore, no changes or restrictions to the SOAP processing model
> are introduced by this feature at an intermediary.  Section 2.4.4 details
> the means by which certain optimizations can be performed by bindings at
> intermediaries.
> </proposed>
> 
> <proposed newSection="2.4.4 Binding Optimizations at Intermediaries">
> As described in SOAP Part 1 Section 2.7 Relaying SOAP Messages, a SOAP
> intermediary may be called upon to to relay intact certain headers, or to
> reinsert headers identical to those received and removed for processing.
> Furthermore, many intermediaries will relay unmodified the contents of the
> SOAP body.   In all these cases, portions of the relayed message have
> content identical to corresponding portions of the inbound message.
> 
> The Abstract Transmission Optimization Feature does not require any
> particular correspondence between the optimization of the inbound message
> and the outbound message, even when optimized portions of the inbound
> message are relayed intact, or reinserted in identical form in the envelope
> Infoset.  Nonetheless, the implementations of the receiving binding and the
> binding used to transmit the relayed message MAY cooperate to provide
> efficient relay.  For example, if the inbound and outbound binding use the
> same representation for optimized binary, the implementations MAY cooperate
> to pass the optimized form directly from the inbound to the outbound
> binding.  The choice of whether to implement such cooperation, and if so
> the means used, is at the discretion of the binding specification(s) and/or
> the implementation of the bindings.
> 
> Note:  a consequence of these rules is that there are no invariant rules
> for the degree to which optimizations are preserved as a message passes
> through intermediaries.  Certain outbound bindings may be incapable of any
> optimization, and will therefore transmit unoptimized forms in all cases.
> Other bindings may be capable of optimization, but may or may not choose to
> or succeed in optimizing the same portions (if any) that were optimized in
> the inbound message.  Other bindings, perhaps under the direction of logic
> provided in SOAP modules or perhaps as consequence of conventions embodied
> in the bindings, may optimize portions of the message that were not
> optimized inbound, or which were optimized using different techniques.
> </proposed>
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-mtom/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 15 September 2003 11:33:46 UTC