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

Re: Transport Binding Reviews

From: Glyn Normington <glyn_normington@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 15:38:12 +0000
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFAA1D6E7B.64AD9346-ON80256B18.00530146@portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>
Some comments. I apologise for repeating some observations sent previously
to the list, but I think they still need to be addressed.

General

* It appears that the only standard features are the SRR MEP and the HTTP
binding specific SOAP Action. I'm concerned that there are so few instances
of such an apparently important concept. Should, for example, at-most-once
delivery, ordered delivery, and absence of message loss be defined as
standard features so that it is clear which of these features specific
transport bindings support? R604 says that the XMLP spec. must consider
message paths over multiple transport protocols. Consideration of a
transport such as SMTP and of multi-hop scenarios involving both HTTP and
SMTP could help to clarify which features are transport-specific and which
are required of all (useful) transport bindings.

SRR MEP

* The default HTTP binding describes a state transition in the requesting
SOAP node from 'waiting' to 'requesting' in the case of a 3xx redirection
response. If that is allowed, the state transition diagram in the SRR MEP
should be updated to reflect this.

Default HTTP Binding

* The document should state what version of HTTP is intended. I would hope
the binding is suitable for HTTP v1.0 and later.
* What assumptions are being made regarding interoperation at the protocol
level with SOAP 1.1 bound to HTTP?

Glyn Normington
(The views expressed above are not necessarily those of IBM.)
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2001 10:37:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 22:28:13 UTC