[Fwd: Re: [Council] VOTE: JEP-0072 (SOAP Over XMPP)]

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Tue Nov 30 10:35:50 CST 2004

Well, here are some other options:

1. We could have discussed this stuff during Last Call.

2. We can cc Fabio on this thread.

/me grumbles ;-)

On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 08:32:10AM -0700, Matthew A. Miller wrote:
> Forwarding to list.
> Hey Council-chair/JEP-editor, how about letting Mr. Fornio post directly 
> for these discussions? (-:
> -  LW
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Council] VOTE: JEP-0072 (SOAP Over XMPP)
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:48:20 +0100
> From: Fabio Forno <fabio.forno at polito.it>
> Organization: Politecnico di Torino
> To: Matthew A. Miller <linuxwolf at outer-planes.net>
> CC: Jabber Council discussion list <council at jabber.org>
> References: <20041105233148.GA19788 at jabber.org> 
> <41AB3B9A.1070006 at outer-planes.net>
> Matthew A. Miller wrote:
> >Overall, the JEP seems to follow both Jabber Tao and SOAP 1.0 faithfully.
> >
> >However, the way attachments are handled gives me some concern.  I can 
> >completely understand why it was done this way (reusing existing Jabber 
> >protocol is usually a Good Thing), but having the requester start 
> >transfers before the responder has decided it's going to accept the SOAP 
> >request doesn't seem right.  It seems to me something like sipub[1] 
> >(whether or not sipub is actually used) would be a better route, since 
> >it allows the responder to trigger the file transfer from the requester.
> Yep, I agree, there is a problem with attachments (file trasfer). The
> first time I read your comment I wasn't getting the point, then thinking
> about it I figured the following case. SOAP messages aren't simple point
> to point messages, but they can pass many hops and be processed in the
> meanwhile. While usually just the header is processed during the path,
> the body and attachements are bound to the final hop.
> Instead, accordingly to JEP72, the file should be offered directly to
> the next hop and so on, though just a reference to the stream would be
> better. My suggestion: change SHOULD with COULD and clarify better that
> other mechanisms should be used when more appropriate, such as sipub.

More information about the Council mailing list