- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 10:41:37 -0400
- To: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
The reason I'm not entirely supportive of Chris' proposal is that it's not entirely clear to me that in all cases where a 202 is received we want the receiving bit of software to act as a SOAP node. You could imagine 202 being used as a sort of tunnel, in which the transport is being used to move around SOAP envelopes, and only some of the places those envelopes land need be SOAP nodes. Furthermore, if an MEP or binding calls for SOAP processing, then I think it should answer some other questions, such as where to deliver faults that may result from such processing. I'm not strongly against telling that story about envelopes received with 202's, if that's what everyone wants, but I am against telling the story vaguely or incompletely. So, my current inclination is either to stick with what I've got (mild preference for that), or to write a somewhat more complete story, starting with what Chris drafted, but adding some words about how no normative rules are provided for further transmissions of faults generated by such processing, maybe say that this binding makes no statement as to whether such a node is to act as the ultimate receiver (we don't say that about other messages either, though perhaps we should, but in this case it seems to me that the situation is so bizarre from an MEP point of view that it's of some value to be explicit.) Not sure how much time it's worth tuning up things like this. -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 7 August 2006 14:41:43 UTC