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;

http://www.projectliberty.org/specs/liberty-paos-v1.1.pdf

> 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
contrary;

"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.

Mark.
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2005 00:00:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:10 GMT