W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > May 2002

RE: Transport Binding Reviews

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 15:33:12 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F192B52@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Glyn Normington'" <glyn_normington@uk.ibm.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org, "'xmlp-comments@w3.org'" <xmlp-comments@w3.org>

In December you responded [1] to David Fallside's request [2] for feedback
on the transport binding framework that was being incorporated into Working
Drafts that were published in December [3,4].

As we work towards our next Working Draft I have been asked to let you know
how the WG has respond to your comments. It would be helpful if you could
let us know whether we have adequately addressed you comments by 10th May
2002 and if not what further action you would like the WG to take.

In [1] Glyn Normington wrote:

> 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
> 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.

We would have liked to have been able to define more Features at this time. 
Features, are a point of extensibility for SOAP and our expectation is 
that the repetoire of features will grow over time. Our current intend 
is to provide a framework within which such features can be created 
and to use that framework to provide the bare essentials for SOAP 1.2.

> * 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.

The MEP and HTTP bindings are being updated and it is our intent that the
and diagrams be consistent.

> 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?

This is the subject of a separate response [5].

> Glyn Normington
> (The views expressed above are not necessarily those of IBM.)

Best regards

Stuart Williams

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/0048.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Nov/0272.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part1-20011217/
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part2-20011217/
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002May/0001.html
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2002 10:34:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:20 UTC