Re: status of ROR (part deux)

All,

As I was reviewing the changes, I was struck by the following text in 
Noah's draft [1] in sections
7.5.1.3 Sending+Receiving and also in 7.5.1.4 Receiving,

To wit:

        ***Similarly, receipt of any response entity-body with a status 
code of 202 is not normative. 
        If such an unexpected response is of type "application/soap+xml", 
then SOAP processing of 
        that response is beyond the scope of the specification for this 
binding. 

While I think that this is technically correct, I think that it is 
somewhat misleading, and I also think that
it is inconsistent with the resolutions in my previous email in which we 
say that the response
envelope, if present, SHOULD be processed according to the SOAP process 
rules in 2.6.

I would therefore offer this proposed amendment:

        *** Similarly, although receipt of any response entity-body with a 
status code of 202 is not normative,
        in the event that such a response entity body is of type 
"application/soap+xml", then the response
        envelope SHOULD be processed in accordance with 2.6 Processing 
SOAP Messages [2]

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2OptRespMEP.html 
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part1-20030624/#procsoapmsgs

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