RE: {http cookies} REQUIRED?

Thanks for your comment.  The WS Description Working Group tracked this
issue as a CR067 [1].

 

The Working Group clarified that in the SOAP binding, the HTTP properties
occur only when the transport is HTTP (e.g. they override REQUIRED).

This has been implemented in the latest editor's draft [2].

 

Unless you let us know otherwise by the end of October, we will assume you
agree with the resolution of this issue.

 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR067 

[2]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.html
?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#soap-binding

 

Jonathan Marsh -  <http://www.wso2.com> http://www.wso2.com -
<http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com> http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com

 

  _____  

From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 6:14 AM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: {http cookies} REQUIRED?

 

I noticed from Arthur's updates to the interchange format that
BindingOperation.{http cookies} is required when the SOAP binding is
engaged.  The text before that makes it sound optional (e.g. "may",
"allowed".)  I think Arthur's reading is probably most nearly literally
correct, but if so, the "may" and "allowed" might need to be strengthened a
little.  But I wonder if this reading is really what we intended.

 

The bigger question is, whether support for the defined subset of {http *}
properties are required by all implementations of the SOAP binding or
whether the whttp:* attributes are an "optional extension" of the SOAP
binding.  The latter seems a bit strange, as we don't seem to require
implementations to support a {soap underlying protocol} value of
"http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/bindings/HTTP/", yet everyone is required
populate the {http cookies} property, which is called out as specifically
only having meaning when used with
"http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/bindings/HTTP/".

 

Not sure what the right solution is, but it seems like we should at least
make the {http *} properties optional in the component model unless the
right {soap underlying protocol} is in use.  More difficult but possibly
better would be to figure out how to treat this "nested" extension the same
as the top-level ones.

 

 [  Jonathan Marsh  ][   <mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com> jmarsh@microsoft.com
][  http://auburnmarshes.spaces.msn.com  ]