RE: Re: Comment on SOAP version 1.2 part 0: Primer

Yves:
My comments are below preceded by my name. Thanks for your comments
Nilo

Nilo Mitra
Ericsson, Inc.
phone: 516-677-1073
mobile: 516-476-7427
mailto:nilo.mitra@ericsson.com 



> Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 15:43:57 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Yves Carrier" <&References="yves.carrier@isa-france.org <mailto:yves.carrier@isa-france.org?Subject=Re:%20Comment%20on%20SOAP%20version%201.2%20part%200:%20Primer&In-Reply-To=<AKEGJHFLPHLNCHGFJEBMGEGHCCAA.yves.carrier@isa-france.org>>
> To: <&References="xmlp-comments@w3.org <mailto:xmlp-comments@w3.org?Subject=Re:%20Comment%20on%20SOAP%20version%201.2%20part%200:%20Primer&In-Reply-To=<AKEGJHFLPHLNCHGFJEBMGEGHCCAA.yves.carrier@isa-france.org>>
> Message-ID: <AKEGJHFLPHLNCHGFJEBMGEGHCCAA.yves.carrier@isa-france.org>
> Subject: Comment on SOAP version 1.2 part 0: Primer
> 
> Hi there,
> 
> First, I wish to thank you for this very well done and informative document.
> Here is my humble contribution to help improving it's content:
> 
> 1-
> Section 2.2 of the document says:
> "Note that the Body element does not have an actor attribute. The body
> element is always targeted at the SOAP processor that assumes the
> "anonymous" actor role. In that sense, the body element is just like a
> header element targeted at the anonymous actor, but it has been
> distinguished to allow for SOAP processors (typically at SOAP
> intermediaries) to skip over it if they assume roles other than the
> anonymous one."
	[Nilo Mitra (EMX)]  Perhaps you are reading an old version of the Primer. Since 2/13/02, the Primer
	has been updated to use the term "ultimateReceiver" instead of "anonymous", and no further mention
	is made of the anonymous actor.


> My understanding is that the Body is always targetted to the
> UltimateReceiver. From the above, one may understand that if an intermediate
> node would detect an actor attribute set to "anonymous", it may receive the
> body content. I understand that the intent is to rely on the fact that
> implicitly, only the UltimateReciver will have it's role set to "anonymous"
> but I would suggest to rephrase the above sentence to explicitly mention it.
	[Nilo Mitra (EMX)]  In view of the above cahnes, does your concern go away? Please confirm.

> 2-
> Section 2.4:
> Thes 2 sentences can be found within the same section:
> "Another optional sub-element faultactor identifies the SOAP processor which
> generated the fault, its absence implying that it was the unlimate recipient
> of the message which did so."
> 
> AND
> 
> "The absence of a faultactor element implies that it is generated by the
> origin server."
	[Nilo Mitra (EMX)]  I am afraid I cannot find these sentences in the current draft. Please could you let me know which version of
	the primer you have been commenting on. You will find the time stamp right after the title.
	In fact, please could I persuade you to re-read the sections in the latest draft that concern you - this would be section 2..3 in the latest version - to see if what
	bothered you has gone away. I add a reference to the latest draft at the end of this email.

> 3- Section 2.4, very last paragraph:
> 
> The text "If there were several mandatory headers that were not
> understood..." should probably be read as "If there were several mandatory
> headers elements that were not understood..."
	[Nilo Mitra (EMX)]  I have changed it to say "If there....mandatory header **blocks**...." I think that is the correct term. Immediate children
	of env:Header are called header blocks.

> I hope it could help,
	[Nilo Mitra (EMX)]  It does. Thank you. May I persuade you to read a considerably revised version at:
	http://jigedit.w3.org/nmitra/WWW/2000/xp/Group/2/01/29/edcopy-soap12-part0-20020129.html

> Yves Carrier,
> ISI inc.
> 
> 
> Nilo Mitra
> Ericsson, Inc.
> phone: 516-677-1073
> mobile: 516-476-7427
> mailto:nilo.mitra@ericsson.com 
>