Re: status of ROR

Fulfilling my AI, here is, what I believe to be the set of edits needed to 
be applied to fully resolve
SC1, 2 and 3.

Starting with the draft used to produce this editor's version:
 http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2OptRespMEP.html

Change Table 7 - "Receiving" row

From: 
'***Either a) Start of response envelope available in 
http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/OutboundMessage or b) indication 
from the application that no such envelope is to be send in the
response.'

To: 
'Start of response available in
http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/OutboundMessage.'


Change Table 17, row 2 column 3 from:

        The request has been accepted, but no response envelope is 
provided. Any further application 
processing is beyond the scope of this use of the 6.2 SOAP 
Request-Response Message Exchange Pattern***. 

to:

        The request has been accepted, but either (a) no response envelope 

        is provided or (b) an envelope representing information related to 

        the request is provided -- such envelopes SHOULD be processed 
using 
        2.6 SOAP Processing model.

(note that the reference to sect 2.6 should probably be a hyperlink to the 
relevant section in SOAP1.2 part 1)

Finaly,  Replace:
<current>
7.5.1.5 Success and Fail

"Success" and "Fail" are the terminal states of the Request-Response and 
SOAP-Response MEPs. Control over the message exchange context returns to 
the local SOAP node.
</current>

with:

<proposed>
7.5.1.5 Success and Fail

"Success" and "Fail" are the terminal states of the Request-Response and 
SOAP-Response MEPs. Control over the message exchange context returns to 
the local SOAP node. 

If the "success" state has been reached and if a SOAP envelope has been 
received, then the local node is a SOAP Receiver as defined in (reference 
to section 1.5.3 of SOAP Part 1] [1]), and in particular MUST obey the 
requirement of [reference to SOAP Part 1 Section 2.1 "SOAP Nodes"] [2] to 
process the message according to the SOAP Processing Model [reference to 
Part 1 section 2.6] [3].
</proposed>

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295

xml-dist-app-request@w3.org wrote on 08/01/2006 08:43:23 AM:

> 
> Fulfilling my AI regarding the historical record of where we were 
> with regards to the ROR, I find that we 
> had resolved all three issues (SC1, 2 and 3) and had slightly 
> amended the proposed text, and that 
> what remained was to do a thorough review (which does not appear to 
> have been done). 
> 
> What isn't clear is whether there is a draft of the spec that 
> reflects all of these changes. I suspect 
> that there is not, and that we will need to start with Noah's draft 
> and apply the edits from the 
> resolutions to SC1, 2 and 3 and all of the other resolutions as 
> outlined below. Once that has been 
> produced, I think that we all need to do a thorough review and 
> report any other necessary tweaks to 
> make consistent. 
> 
> The following is the relevant bits collected from the minutes as 
> well as from emails related to 
> closing SC1, 2 and 3 from the end of April and beginning of May. 
> 
> Minutes of April 26 telcon seem to reflect that we had resolved SC1,
> 2, and 3 with proposed 
> amendment from me (expressed in the minutes) and that Mike was to 
> draft text for the 
> modified text for the spec (not done). >From the minutes: 
>         http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-
> wg/2006Apr/att-0014/2006-04-26-minutes.html 
> 
> [NEW] ACTION: Mike to Draft text for "before dashes" based on 
> Chris's friendly amendment. [recorded in http://www.w3.
> org/2006/04/26-xmlprotocol-minutes.html#action02] 
>         (DONE) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-
> app/2006May/0000.html
> [NEW] ACTION: Mike to Show the conclusions of SC3 to the mailing 
> list. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/26-xmlprotocol-minutes.
> html#action03] 
>         (DONE) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-
> app/2006May/0001.html
> [NEW] ACTION: Noah to Draft proposed text after Table 17. [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/04/26-xmlprotocol-minutes.html#action01] 
>         (DONE) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-
> app/2006May/0003.html 
> 
> From the minutes of May 3, 2006: 
>         http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-
> wg/2006May/0003.html 
> 
> > 5. SOAP 1.2 PER 
> > 
> > Proposal for ROR
> >   Reworked proposal:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Jan/0050.html
> >   HTML Part2 proposal:
> > http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2OptRespMEP.html
> > 
> > Issues:
> > 
> >   SC1: 202 semantics. Table 17 for status code 202 row.
> >   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Mar/0052.html
> >   - I believe this is now moot, see (NM/MB exchange):
> >   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Apr/0008.html
> >   - Yet now continuing 202 and RX (2 separate requests) thread (DH):
> >   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Apr/0009.html
> >   - New proposed text from last week around Table 17. Mike will post 
> >   agreed material, Noah will post new clarifying text after Table 17.
> >   PENDING
> 
> Noah: Based on last week's discussion, we agreed that an HTTP 202
> response could indicate an optional SOAP envelope will follow.  Found
> that there is text around the table that relies on the fact that there
> is no response envelope.  Proposed text:
> 
>  "The request has been accepted, but the server makes no commitment
>  as to whether processing of the request has been completed.  If a
>  response SOAP envelope is provided, than it may represent a partial
>  response or a status update on progress of requst processing; if no
>  response envelope is provided, then any further application
>  processing is beyond the scope of this use of the 6.2 SOAP Request-
>  Response Message Exchange Pattern***."
> 
> Mike: We already accepted text from Chris for this part of the table.
> 
> Noah: Use Chris' text, unless the above is better.
> Next, text states that there will be immediate transition from
> "receiving" to "success" as soon as 202 is received.  Should be from
> both "sending+receiving" and "receiving", if no envelope is received.
> 
> DavidH: Comfortable with Noah's proposed text.
> 
> Noah: Table 17 is in a section entitled "Requesting".  But this
> transition is to "success", so also needed to draft text for 7.5.1.5
> "Success and Fail".
> 
> Mike: Does this add conformance criteria?
> 
> Noah: No, it's just clarification.
> 
> DavidH: This won't change existing "200" implementations, because they
> do this anyway.
> 
> Noah: New proposed text:
> If the "success" state has been reached, either as a result of ... or 
...
> [See IRC log at http://www.w3.org/2006/05/03-xmlprotocol-irc
> Access to log is forbidden at the time minutes are being submitted.]
> 
> Noah: Bug in 7.5.1.4:
> Indicate status code 200 ... response includes soap envelope....
> Need to remove this.
> Look for everywhere the spec implies that 202 has no envelope.
> 
> ACTION: Yves to perform critical review of changes SC1, SC2, SC3 to
> ensure the result is complete.
> 
> >   SC2: Semantics of response message. 6.2.2
> >   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Mar/0051.html
> >   - reworked in last telecon. New text is at:
> >   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Apr/0023.html
> >   If no more pushback, then this is the final text
> >   DONE
> > 
> >   SC3: OutboundMessage abstraction
> >   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Mar/0050.html
> >   - discussed at some length last week, search for SC3
> > 
> > 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2006Apr/att-0004
> >    /2006-04-05-minutes.html
> >   - Chris has a action here
> >   DONE - final text from Chris. Mike will repost to list. 
> 
> Noah in his response to the posted draft minutes wrote: 
>         http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-
> wg/2006May/0004.html 
> 
> As minuted:
> 
> > Next, text states that there will be immediate transition from
> > "receiving" to "success" as soon as 202 is received.  Should be from
> > both "sending+receiving" and "receiving", if no envelope is received.
> 
> I think that should be:
> 
> Next, text states that there will be immediate transition from 
"receiving" 
> to "success" as soon as 202 is received.  Should be >to< either 
> "sending+receiving" and "receiving", and then immediately to "success" 
if 
> no envelope is received.
> 
> Do I have that right? 
> 
> 
> Christopher Ferris
> STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
> phone: +1 508 377 9295