W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms@w3.org > April 2002

RE: Requirements Last Call: HTTP Bindings

From: Blair Dillaway <blaird@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:32:14 -0700
Message-ID: <AA19CFCE90F52E4B942B27D42349637902CDCFC0@red-msg-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Yassir Elley" <yassir.elley@sun.com>
Cc: <www-xkms@w3.org>
Re: #2 - my faulty memory.  I had remembered this being RF and took a
quick look and saw RF in a couple of places.  You are correct that some
submitters made a RAND statement.

Let's discuss other issues at the f2f.

-----Original Message-----
From: Yassir Elley [mailto:yassir.elley@sun.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 12:05 PM
To: Blair Dillaway
Cc: www-xkms@w3.org
Subject: Re: Requirements Last Call: HTTP Bindings

Hi Blair,

Comments below.

Blair Dillaway wrote:

> 2. If you check the SOAP 1.1 Note submission to the W3C you will find 
> the submitters have provided for royalty-free use of any IP 
> incorporated in the spec.

I checked the SOAP 1.1 Note submission (at
www.w3.org/Submission/2000/05). While some of the submitters seem to be
offering RF (royalty-free) terms, others are clearly offering RAND
(reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms. Is there an updated URL I
should be looking at?

> 3. XML-P has been making very good progress on SOAP 1.2 so we should 
> probably discuss the viability of moving to a SOAP 1.2 binding at the 
> upcoming f2f.  This may still be premature.

We should certainly discuss this.

> 4. SOAP over HTTP is probably the most widespread use of SOAP.  So a 
> SOAP binding already tells one how to use HTTP.  If you mean something

> else then there would need to be a description of how the XKMS message

> payloads are carried over HTTP POST.  I don't see the value in 
> creating another XML-based message description that isn't SOAP.  I 
> think it obvious that we can't use HTTP GET.

Yes, I was proposing specifying how the XKMS message payloads are
carried over HTTP POST. Again, the value would be for clients who are
for some reason not able (for performance reasons) or not willing (for
migration reasons) to deal with SOAP (even over HTTP) but are able and
willing to deal with HTTP directly.

I guess a more general question is whether XKMS is SOAP-agnostic. When
the Requirements state in 2.4.10 that "SOAP 1.1 need not be the only
binding defined, but is required", what does that mean? My
interpretation is that it means we are NOT requiring people to use SOAP,
but that is the only binding we happen to be providing and therefore the
only one that is standard. If we are indeed SOAP-agnostic, as 2.4.10
seems to indicate, then we should not really be relying on any of the
capabilities of SOAP and using SOAP-SEC should not have even been an
option when we were discussing payload security.

Anyway, I think we should discuss this and clarify this at the F2F.


> Blair
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yassir Elley [mailto:yassir.elley@sun.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 2:04 PM
> To: www-xkms@w3.org
> Subject: Requirements Last Call: HTTP Bindings
> The requirements clearly state that the "specification MUST provide a 
> binding to SOAP 1.1 (2.1.4). Later, we say that "SOAP 1.1 need not be 
> the only binding defined, but is required." (2.4.10)
> I assume this means that we are not requiring people to use SOAP 1.1 
> as a communications protocol, but essentially that is the only one 
> whose binding we are specifying, so that is the only one that people 
> will be able to rely on using interoperably.
> I propose adding a requirement that the specification MUST also 
> provide a binding to HTTP. HTTP is certainly a widely supported 
> communications protocol and there may be many devices that can deal 
> with HTTP, but not with SOAP (such as constrained devices). 
> Additionally, HTTP is not encumbered with any patents. Although I 
> believe XML Protocol is being offered on a royalty-free basis, I don't

> think the same can be said for SOAP 1.1 (or WSDL for that matter).
> -Yassir.
> PS: Sorry about the late comment, but I believe Stephen said we would 
> accomodate Last Call comments for a couple of days after April 15.
Received on Friday, 19 April 2002 16:33:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:31:38 UTC