RE: comments on draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-05

Yes, I agree, it is a transplant from other XML protocols, and unfortunately
only a partial one. To reiterate a point that I perhaps made too obliquely
in my initial note, the mustUnderstand mechanism in SOAP relies on the
generation of SOAP faults which report back the circumstances of the failure
to the sender, so that the sender can tailor their messages as appropriate.
This allows a negotiation down to a lowest common denominator. The absence
of such feedback is the problem with mustUnderstand as a negotiation
mechanism in PIDF.

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 3:45 PM
> To: Adrian Bateman
> Cc: 'Peterson, Jon'; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: comments on draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-05
> 
> 
> I think this is a "style" of xml usage that was established 
> outside of PIDF and IETF. If you do a google search on it you 
> will see that it is a well established usage in SOAP, and has 
> perhaps just been carried over out of habit by people who 
> participate in both.
> 
> But if it just crept into PIDF by accident, without any 
> compelling reason for being there, I would be happy to see it 
> go away. As Jon has mentioned, it is a poor alternative to a 
> suitable negotiation.
> 
> 	Paul
> 
> Adrian Bateman wrote:
> > 
> > On 27 August 2002 20:30, Peterson, Jon wrote:
> > > > At the
> > > > moment, I can't really think of a suitable example where the
> > > > mustUnderstand attribute seems really useful, however.
> > >
> > > I've had some trouble with that myself, actually.
> > 
> > I went back in the archives to see where this began:
> > 
> > http://www.imppwg.org/ml-archive/IMPP-WG/200108/msg00017.html
> > http://www.imppwg.org/ml-archive/IMPP-WG/200109/msg00003.html
> > http://www.imppwg.org/ml-archive/IMPP-WG/200109/msg00005.html
> > 
> > It doesn't seem like a specific case was held in mind. It 
> was maybe a
> > nice to have? Indeed, Hiroyasu Sugano made a comment at the 
> time that
> > 'even though the user agent cannot understand the 
> "required" extension,
> > it cannot respond with a rejection error across the CPIM gateway'.
> > 
> > Can anyone think of a suitable example?
> > 
> > Adrian.
> 
> 
> 
>   [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical 
> discussions, please]
> 



  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]