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

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

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 17:18:23 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F1923EA@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Hi Henrik,

I took a look in http://www.normos.org/ietf/rfc/rfc2817.txt which contains
the following:

<quote>
7.1 HTTP Status Code Registry

   The HTTP Status Code Registry defines the name space for the Status-
   Code token in the Status line of an HTTP response.  The initial
   values for this name space are those specified by:

   1.  Draft Standard for HTTP/1.1 [1]
   2.  Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning [4] [defines 420-424]
   3.  WebDAV Advanced Collections [5] (Work in Progress) [defines 425]
   4.  Section 6 [defines 426]

   Values to be added to this name space SHOULD be subject to review in
   the form of a standards track document within the IETF Applications
   Area.  Any such document SHOULD be traceable through statuses of
   either 'Obsoletes' or 'Updates' to the Draft Standard for
   HTTP/1.1 [1].
</quote>

It suggests that the IETF/IANA are managing an HTTP Status Code Registry,
but I've been unable to find a snapshot. Do you now know where the registry
is kept?

Also, would we qualify as a "standards track document within the IETF
Applications Area."?

Thanks,

Stuart
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen [mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com]
> Sent: 27 April 2001 16:25
> To: Williams, Stuart
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [i95, i22] - Proposal for clarifying use of SOAPAction
> 
> >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 Monday, 30 April 2001 12:18:34 GMT

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