Re: XOP/MTOM specs remaining problems

I did things in the wrong order, some of those problems are already 
solved by the resolution of 447 (see below) :-(.

Hervé.


Herve Ruellan wrote:


> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I went throught the last versions of both the XOP and MTOM 
> specifications to check for any unresolved problems in them. Here is a 
> list of them with proposals for solving them.
> 
> Hervé.
> 
> --- XOP ---
> 2.1 MIME Multipart/Related XOP Packages
> Issue:
> The media type for the root part of the package is TBD.
> 
> Proposal:
> I think that the media type can vary depending on the type of the 
> original XML Infoset. Therefore, I propose to remove any reference to a 
> media type for the root part of the package.

Solved by resolution of 447.

> ---
> 4.2 Interpreting XOP Packages
> Issue:
> Nothing is said about what to do when the reconstruction of the XML 
> Infoset fails, or if the XOP Package is incorrect while still allowing a 
> reconstruction of the XML Infoset (e.g., xop:Include has a child element).
> 
> Proposal:
> States that any failure is to be handled in an implementation dependant 
> way.
> States that any non fatal error may be ignored at the discretion of the 
> implementation.
> 
> 
> --- MTOM ---
> 1.2 Relation to other specifications
> Issue:
> Relation with SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature is not clearly defined.
> 
> Proposal:
> WG should decide what is the relation with this document.
> 
> ---
> 1.2 Relation to other specifications
> Issue:
> Relation with SOAP Attachment Requirements is that no reconciliation has 
> been done.
> 
> Proposal:
> Change this to state that MTOM fulfills SOAP Attachment Requirements.
> 
> ---
> 3. An Optimized MIME Multipart Serialization of SOAP Messages
> 
> Issue:
> This section does not reference XOP 2.1 MIME Multipart/Related XOP 
> Packages section while it builds upon it.
> 
> Proposal:
> Change 3.2 and 3.3 text to refer to XOP 2.1 MIME Multipart/Related XOP 
> Packages section instead of RFC 2387.
> Add a reference to this section in 3.1 (this is already proposed in 
> rec20 and rec22 resolution).
> 
> ---
> 3.3 Deserialization of a SOAP message
> Issue:
> Nothing is said about what happens when the SOAP message can not be 
> deserialized.
> 
> Proposal:
> States that consequence of reconstruction failure is 
> application/specification dependant.
> 
> ---
> 4.3.2 Receiving a SOAP message
> Issue:
> How to recognize a message serialized using XOP?
> 
> Proposal:
> States that this is realized by using the media-type, i.e., the whole 
> message should be a mime/multipart-related package with a root part of 
> type application/soap_xop+xml.


Solved by resolution of 447.