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

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

From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:40:30 -0800
Message-ID: <43F0FCCE.2090407@oracle.com>
To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
CC: public-ws-addressing@w3.org

David Orchard wrote:
> 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..
> 

Ok. I agree that allowing it all makes sense (so my initial thought that 
this is editorial wasn't too far off ;-) )

-Anish
--

> 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 21:41:00 GMT

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