- From: Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:55:34 -0700
- To: SOAP-JMS <public-soap-jms@w3.org>
---- Protocol-2013 - Verdict - mostly redundant We have this paragraph: "if the charset parameter is specified it is checked to ensure that it matches the encoding value from the supplied XML. If there is a mismatch then a fault MUST be generated.† [Definition: Use fault subcode contentTypeMismatch in the event that the values do not match.†] Protocol-2012 captures the first sentence, and Protocol-2013 apparently covers the [Definition:]. Notice that the definition doesn't have any RFC 2119 language. My suggestion is to drop Protocol 2013, and if people want to refine somewhat, we can either expand the scope of Protocol 2012 to encompass the definition, or change it to read: "if the charset parameter is specified it is checked to ensure that it matches the encoding value from the supplied XML. [Definition: If there is a mismatch then a fault with subcode *contentTypeMismatch* MUST be generated.]†" Thoughts? ---- Protocol-2020 - Verdict - mostly redundant with 2019. I suggest rewording this: "if using SOAP 1.2, and the contentType property has an action parameter, that parameter value MUST match this SOAPJMS_soapAction value.† [Definition: Use fault subcode mismatchedSoapAction if the SOAP 1.2 action does not match.†] " to this: "if using SOAP 1.2, and the contentType property has an action parameter, and that [Definition: parameter value does not match this SOAPJMS_soapAction value, a fault with subcode *mismatchedSoapAction* MUST be generated.†] ---- Protocol-2023 - Verdict - mostly redundant with 2022 I suggest rewording: " MUST appear in the JMS message in the JMS property named SOAPJMS_requestURI.† [Definition: Use fault subcode missingRequestURI if the SOAPJMS_requestURI is missing from the message.†] " to this: "Appears in the JMS Message as the property SOAPMSG_requestURI. Implementations MUST generate a fault with [Definition: subcode missingRequestURI if the SOAPJMS_requestURI is missing from the message.]† ---- Protocol-2024 - Verdict - we should rewrite this so that the conformance statement can appear in its entirety. I'm still contemplating the best way to do this. ---- Protocol-2035 - Verdict - Redundant. We have individual conformance statements about each property. ---- Protocol-2039 - Verdict - Probably redundant - definitely weird because it applies to an entire table. JMSDeliveryMode - this is already written as a conformance statement but we don't treat it that way. JMSExpiration - vague text here doesn't need a conformance statement JMSPriority - we could instead state that "this *SHOULD* be copied from the JMSPriority of the request message. JMSCorrelationID - covered by Protocol-2038 JMSDestination - covered by Protocol-2037 SOAPJMS_requestURI - hmmmm SOAPJMS_bindingVersion - covered by Protocol-2010 SOAPJMS_contentType - covered by Protocol-2016 body - covered by RFC 2119 statements in section 2.4 ---- Protocol-2041 - Verdict - Redundant. Same as Protocol-2035 ----- This concludes my efforts for Action 89. Obvious follow-up is for us to discuss these items in the working group, and figure out the next action items. -Eric.
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 21:55:27 UTC