W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > December 2001

Re: Updated SOAP Protocol Binding Framework

From: Kumeda <kumeda@atc.yamatake.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 10:29:39 +0900
Message-Id: <200112070128.KAA32375@ATCGATE.atc.yamatake.co.jp>
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Dear Henrik Frystyk Nielsen,

First of all, thank you very much for preparing a nice starting
document for the binding framework. The following are my comments on
the document:

1) I think it is better to  move HTTP status code listings found in
section 3.1.1.x to an independent section, as they are not a part of a
Requesting SOAP node, rather, they are a part of a Responding SOAP

2) I think status code 202 is useful and required. Suppose that the
ultimate SOAP receiver is a data logger that collects data from a
remote sensor through a dial-up telephone network. It is designed to
start its data gathering upon receiving a SOAP request to do so. For
this kind of node, it may take too long to prepare a complete (with
logged data from the remote sensor) SOAP response with code 200.
Rather, it is more convenient for the node to respond with a 202 and
implicitly inform the client of the successful receiption of the

3) According to RFC-2626, a message body of a 204 response shall not
contain a message-body. Therefore, the property value of this response
shall be empty. The current text implies that an empty SOAP Envelop is
included, which for me is not "empty" but has <env:Envelop />.

4) I believe the binding framework should provide a clear guidance on
the use of 400 and 500 codes. I propose to use 400 only for gramatical
errors in a SOAP XML document, and all semantic erros shall be
reported with 500.

Best regards,
    Yasuo Kumeda

> Here is a slightly revised version [0] of the SOAP protocol binding
> framework intended for SOAP 1.2 part 1, which incorporates feedback
> received from the WG. The previous revision can be found at [1] and is
> item (a) on David Fallside's list sent out for review [2]. No other
> parts are provided here. Diffs between the two revisions are provided
> [3].
> Note the default disclaimer that the document has no status whatsoever
> nor does it necessarily represent consensus within the TBTF or within
> the XML Protocol WG as a whole.
> Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
> mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com
> [0]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Dec/att-0008/01-SOAP
> BindingFramework-01.html
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/11/20/SOAP_Transport_Binding_Framework
> .html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Nov/0272.html
> [3]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Dec/att-0008/02-SOAP
> BindingFramework-00-01.diff
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2001 20:29:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:43 UTC