Re: Issue 133, and permitting no body

On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 05:47:04PM -0500, Mark Baker wrote:
> > > Hmm. #2 uses an envelope on a response that presumably isn't a fault.
> > > AFAIK, we haven't defined any meaning for this.
> > 
> > Not sure if I see the distinction (maybe I've been out of SOAP-land
> > too long); #2 is just a SOAP response to a HTTP GET. The binding
> > would have to be defined, yes, but I don't know that this is a
> > special kind of response, is it?
> If it's used to try to tunnel requests in as a response, then it's
> definitely "special" IMO.  Some protocols explicitly support this (such
> as SMTP TURN), but most don't.  HTTP doesn't.  A response is a response
> and should only carry faults, unless it was an opaque encapsulated
> message that wasn't intended for processing.

Whoa; where was it said that #2 was about
SOAP-requests-in-HTTP-responses (did I miss it)?

Mark Nottingham

Received on Saturday, 2 February 2002 18:20:26 UTC