W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 2001

Re: SOAP IANA considerations

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:27:01 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200112121627.LAA06074@markbaker.ca>
To: LMM@acm.org
Cc: mogul@pa.dec.com ('Jeffrey Mogul'), joris.dobbelsteen@mail.com ('Joris Dobbelsteen'), http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
I believe Mark is busy with other things right now, so I'll hazard
a response.

> I think that the requirement is not merely that the header is
> "useful" but that its interaction with the rest of HTTP has
> been analyzed and documented. Lots of header extensions are
> poorly considered and not interoperable as documented.
> The original motivation -- to allow "SOAPAction" as a HTTP
> header by putting it in a registry that would be established
> by the XML protocol group -- is pretty suspect. They don't
> need a "registry" to allow SOAPAction, they need to document
> how SOAPAction is used, what it means, and how to implement
> it interoperably. Is it end-to-end or hop-to-hop? Is it allowed
> in trailers as well as headers? Is it only allowed with requests,
> responses, only some methods or with all? How does it interact
> with other parts of HTTP semantics?

Definitely.  IIRC, Mark's thinking was that we would do all that, *and*
establish a registry for others to use.  But I agree with the sentiment
here that we only really need an index, not a registry.

Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2001 16:41:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:16:38 UTC