Fw: Issue 455 closed: Representation header and SOAP processing model
David Fallside <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.distributed |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <OF2F5EA059.CD826407-ON88256E5B.006A168E-88256E5B.006A2FD9@us.ibm.com> |
moving to a discussion list ..... ............................................ David C. Fallside, IBM Data Management Standards Tel 530.477.7169 (TL 544.9665) [email protected] ----- Forwarded by David Fallside/Santa Teresa/IBM on 03/18/2004 11:18 AM ----- Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@ oracle.com> To Sent by: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM@Lotus xmlp-comments-req cc [email protected] Jean-Jacques Moreau <[email protected]>, Dear XMLP Comments 03/18/2004 11:07 <[email protected]> AM Subject Re: Issue 455 closed: Representation header and SOAP processing model [email protected] wrote: > First of all, I formally accept this resolution. We can move ahead, thank > you. > > I should note that, on reflection, I think it would have made sense to say > that "if the processing node has knowledge of the role to which the header > is addressed, and if the node is aware that no other downstream node can > act in such a role, then the representation header need not be reinserted; > in all other situations it MUST be reinserted." This would avoid the > need to send a large representation past an intermediary which had good > reason to believe that it would be useless anyway. > I would imagine that a node that has knowledge of the downstream nodes and their capabilities/roles would be an active intermediary and in that case all bets are off. Comments? > I see no need to reopen the issue unless this observation gets widespread > support. Thank you. > > -------------------------------------- > Noah Mendelsohn > IBM Corporation > One Rogers Street > Cambridge, MA 02142 > 1-617-693-4036 > -------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <[email protected]> > Sent by: [email protected] > 03/17/04 04:08 AM > > > To: [email protected] > cc: Dear XMLP Comments <[email protected]> > Subject: Issue 455 closed: Representation header and SOAP processing model > > > > Dear Noah, > > You raised issue #455 about the interaction between the SOAP processing > model and the Representation Header. > > At its recent f2f, the XMLP WG decided to close[1] this issue by > defining a new role (name to be decided), with the following > characteristics: > > 1. The role will be used to target all Representation header blocks. > > 2. The Representation header block MUST always be reinserted, even if > processed. > > 3a. It's OK for multiple Representation header blocks in the same > message to have the same URI and role. > > 3b. Such Representation header blocks would typically have different > metadata. > > 4. Implementations MAY need to process Representation header blocks > BEFORE other header blocks that might dereference URIs. > > Please let us know immediately if you do not agree with this resolution. > > Regards, > > Jean-Jacques. > > [1] <http://www.w3.org/2004/03/02-xmlprotocol-irc.txt> > > > >
pic23262.gif
(image/gif, 1.2 KB) - not displayed
ecblank.gif
(image/gif, 45 B) - not displayed