W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > February 2006

RE: Wordsmithing for SOAP 1.1 request optional response HTTP Binding.

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:27:31 -0800
Message-ID: <E16EB59B8AEDF445B644617E3C1B3C9CAD0F23@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

I want to allow it all.  SOAP envelope with or without soap body, no
soap envelope.  Some people had been talking about the "case of the
envelope missing a body", so I wanted to highlight that..

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 1:23 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Wordsmithing for SOAP 1.1 request optional response HTTP
> Binding.
> 
> No sure what you meant by 'SOAP Envelope or SOAP Body'.
> If we say 'SOAP Envelope' that would cover SOAP Body, SOAP header
> block(s) or both. Unless you explicitly wanted to prevent a SOAP Body.
> 
> -Anish
> --
> 
> David Orchard wrote:
> > Well, I had meant to say SOAP body, to point out that it might be
just
> > header blocks coming back..  Perhaps I should say "SOAP Envelope or
SOAP
> > Body"...
> >
> > I agree with the 2nd ed comment :-)
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
> >>Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 12:55 PM
> >>To: David Orchard
> >>Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> >>Subject: Re: Wordsmithing for SOAP 1.1 request optional response
HTTP
> >>Binding.
> >>
> >>2 editorial (I hope) comments below.
> >>
> >>-Anish
> >>--
> >>
> >>David Orchard wrote:
> >>
> >>>I had an action to wordsmith the new binding around "response".  My
> >
> > best
> >
> >>>attempt is:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>This SOAP 1.1 request optional response HTTP binding, in
conjunction
> >>>with the SOAP 1.1 binding, can be used for sending request messages
> >
> > with
> >
> >>>an optional SOAP response.  This binding augments the SOAP 1.1
> >
> > binding
> >
> >>>by allowing that the HTTP [RFC 2616] response MAY have a 202 status
> >
> > code
> >
> >>>and the response body MAY be empty.  Note that the HTTP [RFC 2616]
> >>>specification states "the 202 response is intentionally
> >
> > non-committal".
> >
> >>>As such, any content in the response body, including a SOAP body,
> >
> > MAY or
> >
> >>s/SOAP body/SOAP Envelope/
> >>
> >>
> >>>MAY not be an expected SOAP response.
> >>
> >>s/MAY not/MAY NOT/
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Old text:
> >>>
> >>>This SOAP 1.1 request optional response HTTP binding can be used
for
> >>>sending request messages with an optional response. For such
> >
> > messages,
> >
> >>>the HTTP [RFC 2616]
> >>>
> >>
> >
<file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\dorchard\Local%20Settings\Tempora
> > ry
> >
> >
%20Internet%20Files\OLK6\soap11reqoptresphttpbinding.html#RFC2616#RFC261
> > 6>
> >
> >>>response MUST be a 202 status code and the response body MAY be
> >
> > empty.
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Cheers,
> >>>
> >>>Dave
> >>>
> >
> >
Received on Monday, 13 February 2006 21:28:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:11 GMT