- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:38:59 -0500
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
- Cc: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Jacek Kopeckwy writes; > I would note that in absence of other features saying > otherwise, SOAP Processing Model mandates that the > header is removed by forwarding intermediaries. Your > text seems to imply the nodes may freely choose > otherwise, without reference to active intermediaries > which is what those nodes would become. This is a good discussion, but I think I disagree with the analysis above. Section 2.7.1 includes what I think is the crucial text [1]: "A SOAP header block is said to be reinserted if the processing of that header block determines that the header block is to be reinserted in the forwarded message. This clearly says that the processing rules for a header block can determine whether to reinsert, even in the case of a forwarding intermediary (I think it's clearly implied that we're talking about forwarding intermediaries here.) We are writing the specification for the processing of this header, so we have permission and indeed SHOULD in my opinion indicate the rules for reinsertion as a result of such processing. My note was intended to offer two options for such a Representation Header processing specification. I really don't think that suppying such rules makes the node an active intermediary; on the contrary, I think we're doing what the SOAP Rec tells you to do when specifying the processing of a header at a forwarding intermediary. Make sense? Thanks. Noah [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#relayable -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2004 10:40:42 UTC