RE: Proposal for dealing with other HTTP status codes

Henrik,

Looks good modulo Mark Bakers minor amendment. 

Also mildly suprised that the registration mechanism for new HTTP status
codes is 'buried' in an RFC titled "Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1"... but
if that's where it is...

Thanks,

Stuart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen [mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com]
> Sent: 29 May 2002 20:33
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Proposal for dealing with other HTTP status codes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I took some time ago an action item to provide text for indicating in
> the SOAP HTTP binding that other HTTP status codes than the 
> ones listed
> in [2] are possible but that we have nothing particular to say about
> them in the binding:
> 
> I propose that text something along the following lines can 
> be added to
> section 7.4.1.2 [3]:
> 
> Table 11 refers to some but not all of the existing HTTP/1.1 status
> codes (see [0]). In addition to these status codes, HTTP provides an
> open-ended mechanism for supporting status codes defined by HTTP
> extensions (see [1] for a registration mechanism for new 
> status codes).
> HTTP status codes are divided into status code classes as described in
> HTTP/1.1, section 6.1.1. The SOAP HTTP binding follows the 
> rules of any
> HTTP application which means that an implementation of the SOAP HTTP
> binding must understand the class of any status code, as indicated by
> the first digit, and treat any unrecognized response as being 
> equivalent
> to the x00 status code of that class, with the exception that an
> unrecognized response must not be cached.
> 
> Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
> mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com
> 
> [0] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2817.txt
> [2]
> http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/05/14/soap12-part2-1.93.html
#soapinhtt
p
[3]
http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/05/14/soap12-part2-1.93.html#http-reqb
indwaitstate

Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 10:47:07 UTC