W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > June 2001

RE: XML Protocol: Proposals to address SOAPAction header

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:35:06 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D034419FE@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "christopher ferris" <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>, "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: "Simon Fell" <soap@zaks.demon.co.uk>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, <xmlp-comments@w3.org>

(Sorry for the intermittent email - I am on vacation at the moment)

I think the problem about multi-hop message paths and the SOAP/HTTP
binding is a little bit of a red herring - the HTTP binding itself
speaks nothing about multiple SOAP hops - only HTTP intermediaries which
of course are HTTP constructs and not SOAP constructs.

In order to talk about multi-hop SOAP routes one needs a SOAP routing
mechanism like for example the SOAP-RP proposal

	http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/xml_wsspecs/soap-rp/default.html

which (not quite) coincidentally talks about a similar "action"
construct :)

Henrik

>I echo Larry's concerns regarding this revised proposal.
>It does little to improve the situation and still does not 
>address how SOAPAction is communicated across different 
>transport protocols. If a SOAP message starts out being 
>communicated over the Frobnaz transport protocol, which does 
>NOT have a SOAPAction header (or even a place to put one) and 
>the message is being sent via a Frobnaz->HTTP gateway, where 
>does the gateway get the appropriate SOAPAction to put in the 
>HTTP headers when it forwards the message to the ultimate destination?
Received on Monday, 11 June 2001 16:58:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:26 GMT