- From: David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 10:07:11 -0700
- To: xmlp-comments@w3.org
............................................ David C. Fallside, IBM Ext Ph: 530.477.7169 Int Ph: 544.9665 fallside@us.ibm.com ----- Forwarded by David Fallside/Santa Teresa/IBM on 07/31/2001 10:06 AM ----- John Ibbotson/UK/IBM@I To: David Fallside/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS BMGB cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org Sent by: Subject: Re: HTTP Extension Framwork in SOAP 1.2 xml-dist-app-requ est@w3.org 07/24/2001 01:59 AM I support option (i) - wo should not be seen to endorse an experimental framework. John XML Technology and Messaging, IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, Winchester, SO21 2JN Tel: (work) +44 (0)1962 815188 (home) +44 (0)1722 781271 Fax: +44 (0)1962 816898 Notes Id: John Ibbotson/UK/IBM email: john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com "David Fallside" To: xml-dist-app@w3.org <fallside@us.i cc: bm.com> Subject: HTTP Extension Framwork in SOAP 1.2 07/18/2001 12:00 AM Please respond to "David Fallside" An issue[1] has been raised against the recently published SOAP 1.2 specification[2] regarding the reference to a normative binding to the HTTP Extension Framework[3]. The issue relates to the fact that the HTTP Extension Framework specification has no standing within the IETF but as an Experimental RFC. This "experimental RFC" status has specific meaning[4] within the IETF. From RFC2026 section 4.2.3: If (a) the IESG recommends that the document be brought within the IETF and progressed within the IETF context, but the author declines to do so, or (b) the IESG considers that the document proposes something that conflicts with, or is actually inimical to, an established IETF effort, the document may still be published as an Experimental or Informational RFC. In these cases, however, the IESG may insert appropriate "disclaimer" text into the RFC either in or immediately following the "Status of this Memo" section in order to make the circumstances of its publication clear to readers. and indeed the IESG did insert such a disclaimer in [3]: IESG Note This document was originally requested for Proposed Standard status. However, due to mixed reviews during Last Call and within the HTTP working group, it is being published as an Experimental document. This is not necessarily an indication of technical flaws in the document; rather, there is a more general concern about whether this document actually represents community consensus regarding the evolution of HTTP. Additional study and discussion are needed before this can be determined. Note also that when HTTP is used as a substrate for other protocols, it may be necessary or appropriate to use other extension mechanisms in addition to, or instead of, those defined here. This document should therefore not be taken as a blueprint for adding extensions to HTTP, but it defines mechanisms that might be useful in such circumstances. Having this "normative" binding within the SOAP 1.2 specification may be interpreted by some as W3C endorsement of this experimental RFC, encouraging its use. We would like to have your feedback/input as to whether the XMLP Working Group should preserve or remove the reference to the normative HTTP Extension Framework binding in the SOAP 1.2 specification. The XMLP WG is considering several options: (i) removal of all references to HTTP Extension Framework binding (ii) preservation of status quo (iii) relocate the references to the HTTP Extension Framework binding to a non-normative appendix or a separately published document Send formal comments to xmlp-comments@w3.org (archive available at [5]). [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x109 [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-20010709 [3] http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc2774.txt [4] http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/ ............................................ David C. Fallside, IBM Chair, XML Protocol Working Group Ph: 530.477.7169 fallside@us.ibm.com
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2001 14:55:33 UTC