RE: discarding incorrect namespaces

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net]
> Sent: 12 September 2001 16:32
> 
> Will SOAP 1.2 implementations recognise the namespace of SOAP 1.3
> envelopes?

I guess probably not?

> I'd think this should be a situation that generates a
> Fault...

I think that's debatable. I guess that if its got a content type of text/xml
or even better text/soap.xml then it would certainly be reasonable to
respond with a SOAP fault in some early version (1.1) envelope namespace.
I'd probably also want to be sure that the it at least looked like the start
of a SOAP message... appropriate XML preamble and maybe a root element whose
local name is "Envelope".

I would remain cautious about blasting out a SOAP fault if the inbound
entity didn't look reasonably like a SOAP message.

Stuart


> 
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 05:54:30AM +0100, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> > 
> > I think that there may be two cases of 'incorrect' that may 
> need to be
> > further distinguished.
> > 
> > 1) Namespaces (on the root element) that are completely 
> unrecognised.
> > 2) Namespaces that are recognised but whose semantics are 
> not implemented
> >    the receiving node.
> > 
> > In both cases the 'incorrect' namespace may be that of a 
> previous SOAP
> > envelope version. IMO it is only in the latter case that a 
> node should
> > consider generating a response (eg. a SOAP Fault). 
> > 
> > In the first case, the recipient node has not made positive 
> determination
> > that the received message is a SOAP message (of any 
> envelope version). In
> > this case the generation and subsequent transmission of a 
> SOAP fault could
> > only serve to compound the failure if the recipient of the 
> fault does not
> > recognise the envelope version of the response.
> > 
> > ie.
> > In the 1st case I think that the appropriate action is 
> indeed to discard the
> > message received with the 'incorrect' namespace.
> > 
> > In the 2nd case it is reasonable to deduce that the sender 
> is a SOAP Node
> > compliant with some version of SOAP and there may be 
> appropriate action to
> > take other than discarding the message.
> > 
> > 
> > Regards
> > 
> > Stuart
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net]
> > > Sent: 10 September 2001 23:49
> > > To: XML Distributed Applications List
> > > Subject: Re: discarding incorrect namespaces
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I don't remember it either; I based my comments on the pre-split
> > > Working Draft. 
> > > 
> > > On the face of it, this looks better, except it still 
> says 'It MUST
> > > discard messages that have incorrect namespace information' which
> > > conflicts with the envelope versioning Fault, IIRC.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 02:25:07PM -0700, Hugo Haas wrote:
> > > > Hi Mark.
> > > > 
> > > > I was rereading the spec and noticed that this had been changed.
> > > > 
> > > > * Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> [2001-08-17 14:14-0700]
> > > > > Finally, considering our versioning model, does it 
> make sense to
> > > > > upgrade
> > > > > 
> > > > > "A SOAP application SHOULD include the proper SOAP 
> > > namespace on all
> > > > > elements and attributes defined by SOAP in messages that it
> > > > > generates."
> > > > > 
> > > > > to MUST, and strike
> > > > > 
> > > > > "... MAY process SOAP messages without SOAP namespaces as 
> > > though they had
> > > > > the correct SOAP namespaces."
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is in the context of all SOAP namespaces, not just 
> > > the envelope,
> > > > > but it seems prudent to clarify in some fashion.
> > > > 
> > > > Section 3 now reads[1]:
> > > > 
> > > >    A SOAP node MUST ensure that all element information 
> items and
> > > >    attribute information items in messages that it generates are
> > > >    correctly namespace qualified.
> > > > 
> > > > Is that something we agreed on? I don't remember 
> discussing this. I
> > > > like this change, but I would like to check that everybody 
> > > is aware of
> > > > and happy with it. That would resolve issue 135[2].
> > > > 
> > > >   1. 
> > http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/08/29/soap12-part1.html#reltoxml
> > >   2. http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x135
> > > -- 
> > > Hugo Haas - W3C
> > > mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ - 
> tel:+1-617-452-2092
> > > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Mark Nottingham
> > http://www.mnot.net/
> >  
> 
> -- 
> Mark Nottingham
> http://www.mnot.net/
>  
>

Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2001 22:00:45 UTC