Re: Issue #12 proposed resolution

Generally, +1

Comments - 

I'd argue against including 3xx status codes; if we don't have
anything SOAP-specific to say about them, why say anything at all?
Otherwise, we're just re-documenting 2616, et al.

Including 415 is a bit jarring... Henrik's proposed binding says
nothing about encapsulation, and REQUIRES the soap envelope to be the
whole content of the message-body. I had thought that this was
because we'd consider bindings that use encapsulation to be separate
from this one. In any case, we need to rationalise these.

Cheers,



On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 10:11:33AM -0400, christopher ferris wrote:
> All,
> 
> Here is the amended section 6.3 of Part 2 regarding HTTP status codes
> and the default HTTP binding as we discussed on this week's con-call.
> 
> Some on the call expressed an interest in seeing the text before
> approving it. Also as discussed, I have removed section 6.3.2 regarding
> 3xx status codes and provided a note which cites its status within the WG
> as being unresolved.
> 
> As agreed on the call, I have removed reference to 201, 203, 205 and
> 206. I have also changed the SHALL to a MAY in regards to 405 and
> I have modified 500 to reflect its use for cases other than those described
> in section 6.3.2 (4xx Client).
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris
> 
> 6.3 SOAP HTTP Response
> 
>         SOAP over HTTP as defined for this default binding follows the semantics 
> 	of the HTTP Status codes for communicating status information in
>         HTTP. 
> 
> 6.3.1 HTTP 2xx Successful
> 
>         A 2xx status code indicates that the request, including the SOAP message 
> 	component, was successfully received, understood, and accepted by
>         the receiving SOAP processor. 
>                 - A 200 OK status SHALL be used to communicate that a SOAP message is 
> 		being conveyed within the entity body of the HTTP response.
>                 The response SOAP message SHALL be implicitly correlated with the 
> 		request SOAP message sent in the HTTP POST operation. 
>                 - A 202 Accepted status MAY be returned by the server to indicate 
> 		that the request SOAP message has been received, but has not been
>                 processed. 
>                 - A 204 No Content status SHALL be used to communicate that the SOAP 
> 		message has been successfully processed by the SOAP application. As 
> 		stipulated in [5], the 204 response MUST NOT include a message body.  
> 
> 6.3.2 HTTP 4xx Client Error
> 
>         In general, a SOAP HTTP client SHOULD be prepared to handle any of the 4xx 
> 	class of HTTP status codes. However, the following status codes
>         have specific meaning within the context of this SOAP binding to HTTP. 
>                 - A 400 Bad Request status SHALL be returned in the event that the 
> 		SOAP message contained within the body of an HTTP request message
>                 is not well formed XML or in the case where a SOAP envelope was expected 
> 		in the body of the HTTP POST request and none was present. 
>                 - A 405 Method Not Allowed status MAY be returned in the event that the 
> 		method specified in the HTTP request is not POST. As specified in RFC2616, 
> 		the HTTP response MUST include an Accept header that includes at least POST. 
>                 - A 415 Unsupported Media Type status code SHALL be returned in the 
> 		event that the encapsulation mechanism used for the SOAP message in the 
> 		HTTP request is unsupported by the server. 
> 
> 6.3.3 HTTP 5xx Server Error
> 
>         If an error occurs while processing a SOAP HTTP message, that is not covered
> 	by any of the conditions expressed above in section 6.3.2, the SOAP HTTP server 
> 	MUST issue an HTTP 500 "Internal Server Error" response and include a SOAP 
> 	message in the response containing a SOAP fault (see section 4.4) indicating 
> 	the SOAP processing error. 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: The following section regarding 3xx HTTP status codes is
> still a topic of debate among members of the WG. The question at hand
> is whether or not the SOAP1.2 specification should provide any guidance
> as to the fact 3xx status codes have no SOAP specific meaning in the
> context of a SOAP processor that uses this default HTTP binding, or whether
> this section should be removed and nothing be said about 3xx status codes.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 6.3.2 HTTP 3xx Redirection
> 
>         No SOAP specific behavior is associated with the 3xx status codes. A SOAP client 
>         SHOULD be prepared to receive and process a 3xx status code as defined in RFC2616 
>         section 10.3. 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

-- 
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Friday, 28 September 2001 13:00:05 UTC