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

Re: Updated SOAP Protocol Binding Framework

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:46:04 -0500
To: kumeda@atc.yamatake.co.jp
Cc: henrikn@microsoft.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org, xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF41A2C9E1.049664D0-ON85256B1B.0072A76A@lotus.com>
Thank you for the kind words.  While Henrik and I were indeed among those 
who did significant work on the framework, others from the workgroup are 
currently taking the lead on the latest rounds of work.  By sending to 
distApp, your note has already reached them.  Again, thank you for your 
interest.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------------







"Kumeda" <kumeda@atc.yamatake.co.jp>
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
12/06/01 08:29 PM

 
        To:     Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: Updated SOAP Protocol Binding Framework


Dear Henrik Frystyk Nielsen,

First of all, thank you very much for preparing a nice starting
document for the binding framework. The following are my comments on
the document:

1) I think it is better to  move HTTP status code listings found in
section 3.1.1.x to an independent section, as they are not a part of a
Requesting SOAP node, rather, they are a part of a Responding SOAP
node.

2) I think status code 202 is useful and required. Suppose that the
ultimate SOAP receiver is a data logger that collects data from a
remote sensor through a dial-up telephone network. It is designed to
start its data gathering upon receiving a SOAP request to do so. For
this kind of node, it may take too long to prepare a complete (with
logged data from the remote sensor) SOAP response with code 200.
Rather, it is more convenient for the node to respond with a 202 and
implicitly inform the client of the successful receiption of the
request.

3) According to RFC-2626, a message body of a 204 response shall not
contain a message-body. Therefore, the property value of this response
shall be empty. The current text implies that an empty SOAP Envelop is
included, which for me is not "empty" but has <env:Envelop />.

4) I believe the binding framework should provide a clear guidance on
the use of 400 and 500 codes. I propose to use 400 only for gramatical
errors in a SOAP XML document, and all semantic erros shall be
reported with 500.

Best regards,
    Yasuo Kumeda


>
> Here is a slightly revised version [0] of the SOAP protocol binding
> framework intended for SOAP 1.2 part 1, which incorporates feedback
> received from the WG. The previous revision can be found at [1] and is
> item (a) on David Fallside's list sent out for review [2]. No other
> parts are provided here. Diffs between the two revisions are provided
> [3].
>
> Note the default disclaimer that the document has no status whatsoever
> nor does it necessarily represent consensus within the TBTF or within
> the XML Protocol WG as a whole.
>
> Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
> mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com
>
> [0]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Dec/att-0008/01-SOAP
> BindingFramework-01.html
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/11/20/SOAP_Transport_Binding_Framework
> .html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Nov/0272.html
> [3]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Dec/att-0008/02-SOAP
> BindingFramework-00-01.diff
>
>
Received on Friday, 7 December 2001 15:57:17 UTC

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