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

HTTP Extension Framwork in SOAP 1.2

From: David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 16:00:13 -0700
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFD7E46168.B93D50A1-ON88256A87.00673B08@boulder.ibm.com>
An issue[1] has been raised against the recently published SOAP 1.2
specification[2] regarding the reference to a normative binding to the HTTP
Extension Framework[3].

The issue relates to the fact that the HTTP Extension Framework
specification has no standing within the IETF but as an Experimental RFC.

This "experimental RFC" status has specific meaning[4] within the IETF.
From RFC2026 section 4.2.3:

   If (a) the IESG recommends that the document be brought within the
   IETF and progressed within the IETF context, but the author declines
   to do so, or (b) the IESG considers that the document proposes
   something that conflicts with, or is actually inimical to, an
   established IETF effort, the document may still be published as an
   Experimental or Informational RFC.  In these cases, however, the IESG
   may insert appropriate "disclaimer" text into the RFC either in or
   immediately following the "Status of this Memo" section in order to
   make the circumstances of its publication clear to readers.

and indeed the IESG did insert such a disclaimer in [3]:

   IESG Note

   This document was originally requested for Proposed Standard status.
   However, due to mixed reviews during Last Call and within the HTTP
   working group, it is being published as an Experimental document.
   This is not necessarily an indication of technical flaws in the
   document; rather, there is a more general concern about whether this
   document actually represents community consensus regarding the
   evolution of HTTP.  Additional study and discussion are needed before
   this can be determined.

   Note also that when HTTP is used as a substrate for other protocols,
   it may be necessary or appropriate to use other extension mechanisms
   in addition to, or instead of, those defined here.  This document
   should therefore not be taken as a blueprint for adding extensions to
   HTTP, but it defines mechanisms that might be useful in such
   circumstances.

Having this "normative" binding within the SOAP 1.2 specification may be
interpreted by some as W3C endorsement of this experimental RFC,
encouraging its use.

We would like to have your feedback/input as to whether the XMLP Working
Group should preserve or remove the reference to the normative HTTP
Extension Framework binding in the SOAP 1.2 specification.

The XMLP WG is considering several options:
(i) removal of all references to HTTP Extension Framework binding
(ii) preservation of status quo
(iii) relocate the references to the HTTP Extension Framework binding to a
non-normative appendix or a separately published document

Send formal comments to xmlp-comments@w3.org (archive available at [5]).

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x109
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-20010709
[3] http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc2774.txt
[4] http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/

............................................
David C. Fallside, IBM
Chair, XML Protocol Working Group
Ph: 530.477.7169
fallside@us.ibm.com
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2001 19:12:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:02 GMT