W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2002

Re: New Issue from F2F: Handling badly formed SOAP Messages.

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 12:30:53 -0500
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF37C6C59F.5A4F481A-ON85256B76.005E1A7B@lotus.com>
As I think I suggested at the F2F, I think most of this should be within a 
particular binding.  Our current architecture does not mandate that 
bindings use XML 1.0 on the wire.   It does not mandate that the message 
be sent in a single packet or transmission, does not mandate that it be 
sent in order, etc.  It merely mandates that the binding succeed in 
transmitting the infoset, using means of its choosing. 

I think it might be reasonable to have in the binding framework some very 
broad model of "binding-specific failure", which would have to be 
integrated at every point in the framework state machine where such a 
failure could occur.  Perhaps such failures should be modeled as faults 
originating where the failure is discovered (but we have to be a bit 
careful...it's not impossible that bindings at both nodes involved in 
processing bad data would notice problems, and that multiple faults would 
be in flight wrt to the processing of a given message or req/resp pair.) 
The fact that the failure relates to one transmission format or another, 
or XML 1.0 in particular, is not something we should get into, except 
within the HTTP binding itself (it would make some sense there, I think).

Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

"Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
03/06/02 05:47 AM

        To:     "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        New Issue from F2F: Handling badly formed SOAP Messages.

During the F2F I was actioned to raise an Issue with respect to the first
Ednote in SOAP 1.2 Part 2 section, part of the HTTP binding [1].

The ednote states:
As described this model tends to hide a malformed message from the local
SOAP Node and handle the malformation in the binding - basically because 
would not be possible to instantiate the CurrentMessage to pass up for
processing. An alternate formulation might be to allow CurrentMessage to
carry badly formed messages and let the SOAP processor/node deal with it. 
presented here we can have define the bindings behaviour with respect to
particular failures. 

The issue that the ednote raises is two fold:

1) From a descriptive point of view where do we place the responsibility 
describe behaviour associated with the receipt of poorly formed SOAP
messages? Malformations might include: XML that is not-well formed;
Unsupported envelope version; some unsupported message encapsulation (eg

2) From a more practical point-of-view, is it right that a binding
implementation 'hide' the receipt of such 'broken' messages from the SOAP
processor/node. This may be more moot, because it probably makes
inappropriate assumptions about the structure of an implementation.

The WG felt that this topic warranted further discussion.


Stuart Williams
Received on Friday, 8 March 2002 12:48:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:47 UTC