- From: David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 10:08:06 -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 10:07 AM
-----
"Henrik Frystyk
Nielsen" To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
<henrikn@microsof cc: "XML Distributed Applications List" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
t.com> Subject: RE: HTTP Extension Framwork in SOAP 1.2
Sent by:
xml-dist-app-requ
est@w3.org
07/17/2001 07:25
PM
If nobody uses it then I have no problem removing it. If it is used then
I prefer option iii.
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 17:07
>To: xmlp-comments@w3.org
>Cc: XML Distributed Applications List
>Subject: Re: HTTP Extension Framwork in SOAP 1.2
>
>
>
>I would prefer option i (removal) or, failing that, option
>iii (separation).
>
>Currently, the only way that SOAP uses the framework is
>through the addition of the SOAPAction header; recent
>discussions indicate that it may be removed. Even if it were
>not, we believe the preferable mechanism for adding an HTTP
>header is publication of an RFC-track document, as the P3P WG
>has chosen to do.
>
>In the case that SOAPAction is not removed, use of the
>Framework incurs a higher cost for HTTP implementations to
>discover the 'intent' of the message (because the 'Opt' header
>must be parsed for the appropriate namespace, a new header
>name constructed, and that header parsed, for every message),
>negating some of its value.
>
>As such, the framework provides no value to SOAP applications.
>Additionally, there is little evidence of use of the
>framework, and few HTTP implementations which enable it.
>
>
>
>On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 04:00:13PM -0700, David Fallside wrote:
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>--
>Mark Nottingham
>http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2001 14:55:34 UTC