W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms@w3.org > April 2002

RE: Requirements Last Call: HTTP Bindings

From: Blair Dillaway <blaird@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 14:27:07 -0700
Message-ID: <AA19CFCE90F52E4B942B27D42349637902CDCFB1@red-msg-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Yassir Elley" <yassir.elley@sun.com>, <www-xkms@w3.org>
HTTP and SOAP are non-comparable, so I'm not sure I understand what
you're proposing.  A few comments, 

1. SOAP isn't a communication protocol, it's a message format

2. If you check the SOAP 1.1 Note submission to the W3C you will find
the submitters have provided for royalty-free use of any IP incorporated
in the spec.

3. XML-P has been making very good progress on SOAP 1.2 so we should
probably discuss the viability of moving to a SOAP 1.2 binding at the
upcoming f2f.  This may still be premature.

4. SOAP over HTTP is probably the most widespread use of SOAP.  So a
SOAP binding already tells one how to use HTTP.  If you mean something
else then there would need to be a description of how the XKMS message
payloads are carried over HTTP POST.  I don't see the value in creating
another XML-based message description that isn't SOAP.  I think it
obvious that we can't use HTTP GET.  


-----Original Message-----
From: Yassir Elley [mailto:yassir.elley@sun.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 2:04 PM
To: www-xkms@w3.org
Subject: Requirements Last Call: HTTP Bindings

The requirements clearly state that the "specification MUST provide a
binding to SOAP 1.1 (2.1.4). Later, we say that "SOAP 1.1 need not be
the only binding defined, but is required." (2.4.10)

I assume this means that we are not requiring people to use SOAP 1.1 as
a communications protocol, but essentially that is the only one whose
binding we are specifying, so that is the only one that people will be
able to rely on using interoperably.

I propose adding a requirement that the specification MUST also provide
a binding to HTTP. HTTP is certainly a widely supported communications
protocol and there may be many devices that can deal with HTTP, but not
with SOAP (such as constrained devices). Additionally, HTTP is not
encumbered with any patents. Although I believe XML Protocol is being
offered on a royalty-free basis, I don't think the same can be said for
SOAP 1.1 (or WSDL for that matter).


PS: Sorry about the late comment, but I believe Stephen said we would
accomodate Last Call comments for a couple of days after April 15.
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2002 17:27:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:07:18 UTC