W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > December 2005

Re: Action Item

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 19:00:31 -0500
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0512061600v69420c35lec1bfc7fa8af5a43@mail.gmail.com>
To: "paul.downey@bt.com" <paul.downey@bt.com>
Cc: john.kemp@nokia.com, dmh@tibco.com, conor.p.cahill@intel.com, umit.yalcinalp@sap.com, public-ws-addressing@w3.org

On 12/6/05, paul.downey@bt.com <paul.downey@bt.com> wrote:
> > Right. There's also the reverse HTTP case, where a SOAP request message
> > is sent in the HTTP response, and a SOAP response is then sent in
> > response to that SOAP request on a new HTTP channel, causing a response
> > to the initial SOAP request to be sent over the new HTTP response
> > channel. It's not clear to me that this is exactly polling behaviour. It
> > does, however, involve an asynchronous response to the initial message
> > (according to the WS-A definition of asynchronous).
> John, can you please point to the SOAP HTTP protocol binding that works this
> way, or maybe write it in terms of which HTTP methods are used, and
> responses sent back,

John's presumably referring to the Liberty PAOS stuff;


> I'm having real difficulty in understanding this in
> terms of RFC 2616.

You're not supposed to. 8-)  Unlike the SOAP 1.2 default binding, it
disrespects HTTP's application semantics, despite claims to the

"This binding of SOAP to HTTP is intended to make appropriate use of
HTTP as an application protocol"

If they'd just followed SMTP's lead with TURN/ETRN, or even just used
HTTP CONNECT, all would be well.  Alas.

Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2005 00:00:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:12 UTC