RE: Transport Binding Reviews

Glyn,

As part of a very old thread, I took an action item to get back to you
on your question regarding the HTTP binding. You can find your message
at [1] as part of thread [2]. Note that I am not speaking on behalf of
the WG!

>Default HTTP Binding
>
>* The document should state what version of HTTP is intended. 
>I would hope
>the binding is suitable for HTTP v1.0 and later.

IMO, we are using HTTP/1.1. Parts of the binding may be straight forward
to use in combination with HTTP/1.0 which is described as an
informational in RFC 1945 [3], but we don't specify any behavior in case
it isn't.

>* What assumptions are being made regarding interoperation at 
>the protocol
>level with SOAP 1.1 bound to HTTP?

In SOAP 1.1 we provide a general description of how SOAP 1.1 and SOAP
1.2 can interoperate [4]  and we provide a framework description [5] of
how properties such as the SOAPAction HTTP header field can be expressed
as a "feature" [6]. We don't in general describe how features defined in
one binding can be carried in other bindings as bindings are hop-by-hop.

Hope this helps,

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/0048.html
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/thread.html#48
[3] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1945.txt
[4]
http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/04/11/soap12-part1-1.86.html#version
[5]
http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/04/11/soap12-part1-1.86.html#transpbin
dframew
[6]
http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/04/11/soap12-part1-1.86.html#soapfeatu
re

Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2002 14:04:50 UTC