Re: Resolution of issue Rec39

[xmlp-comments removed from the cc list]

Noah,

I don't have any objection to us 'fixing' this in SOAP 1.2 (or SOAP 1.2b 
or whatever). The difference to me between our previous resolution and 
the new direction that you are proposing is timing. Earlier the better 
and the new direction, I would image, would result in getting the 
'optional-response' capability out there faster. I mostly agreed to the 
previous resolution because of your pushback on not making 
'incompatible' changes to the REC in errata.

I do have some questions about your your email at [1], which I'll 
respond in a different email.

Thanks.

-Anish
--

[email protected] wrote:
> Anish: 
> 
> I believe your note accurately reflects the decision we made a couple of 
> weeks ago.  That was a decision I actively supported.  As we discussed on 
> the 12/14 telcon, I've since somewhat changed my position and new think it 
> may be in the best interest of the community to focus on the ambiguity in 
> the existing rec, and allow ourselves to make the envelope (but not the 
> whole response) in the Req/Resp optional, and to document that in an 
> erratum  (see [1]).  So, I suppose that's a request to reopen the just 
> closed Rec39.  The alternative, which I think I would also support, would 
> be to publish a new (and arguably "incompatible") SOAP 1.2 2nd edition, 
> SOAP 1.2b, SOAP 1.3 with the new feature and take it through a full CR/PR 
> cycle. 
> 
> Sorry for any confusion caused by my change of position.  Thank you.
> 
> Noah
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2005Dec/0010.html
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn 
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anish Karmarkar <[email protected]>
> Sent by: [email protected]
> 12/14/2005 12:48 AM
>  
>         To:     [email protected]
>         cc:     "Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org" <[email protected]>, (bcc: Noah 
> Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
>         Subject:        Resolution of issue Rec39
> 
> 
> 
> At the 07-dec-2005 concall the XMLP WG decided to close issue Rec39 [1] 
> by including the requirement for an optional-response/empty HTTP 
> entity-body in the new MEP/binding work that the WG is undertaking.
> 
> The WG also decided that per the existing binding defined in SOAP 1.2 
> [2], it is not possible to send back an empty HTTP entity body for the 
> non-fault case when using the request-response MEP. The reasons for this 
> are listed in the email at [3].
> 
> -Anish Karmarkar
> on behalf of XMLP WG
> 
> PS: as the person who raised this issue, I'm happy with the resolution.
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-rec-issues.html#x39
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624/#soapinhttp
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2005Aug/0011.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
>