W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2001

RE: [i95, i22] - Proposal for clarifying use of SOAPAction

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 08:25:06 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D0297CB83@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

>I think I'd prefer to see some generic name for a 425 like 
>error code eg. (Header Required by Context Missing) in this 
>case the context is SOAP. If there is no existing HTTP error 
>code that can be leveraged to indicate the absense of a 
>required SOAPAction header then maybe we need to ask for one 
>to be assigned - but i think it would need to be justified on 
>the basis of more general utility to the sorts of things 
>layered above HTTP. 

Other than the generic status code classes, status codes are actually
fairly specific and indeed intended as such. The intent of this code is
not to say that any old header field is missing - it is specifically
that this request needs a SOAPAction header field. Most other 4xx status
codes react to specific header fields as well.

>It seems a little awkward to me from a spec. maintenance POV 
>that a change to the spec. of the SOAP/HTTP binding cascades a 
>change in the HTTP spec. It probably also sets a bad precident 
>for other protocols layered over HTTP to request/require 
>error/status codes to suit their one specific purposes.

It is not a change to the HTTP spec - HTTP provides an extensibility
hook that anybody including us can use. Examples of other specs that
defines status codes are

	http://www.normos.org/ietf/rfc/rfc2817.txt
	http://www.normos.org/ietf/rfc/rfc2774.txt
	http://www.normos.org/ietf/rfc/rfc2518.txt

Btw, 2817 uses 426 so that seems to indicate that 425 is already taken
but I can't find it anywhere. 

Henrik
Received on Friday, 27 April 2001 12:20:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:00 GMT