issue 95 resolution

[Doug Davis <du...@us.ibm.com>]

FYI
-Dug
---------------------- Forwarded by Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM on 09/17/2001
12:57 PM ---------------------------

christopher ferris <ch...@Sun.COM>@w3.org on 09/17/2001 12:18:14 PM

Sent by:  xml-dist-app-request@w3.org


To:   "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xm...@w3.org>
cc:
Subject:  issue 95 resolution



During the San Jose F2F, a subset of the WG members present were chartered
with
the task of resolving the various differences of opinion as regards the
use and meaning of the SOAPAction HTTP header field in the HTTP Binding
section
(Issue 95).

The subteam was successful in their effort and proposed revised wording
for the specification which was slightly modified and subsequently ratified
by all
members present at the F2F.

The key points of the resolution were that SOAPAction HTTP Header Field
would be made
OPTIONAL (in the RCC2119 sense) in the SOAP1.2 - Part 2 specification, with
a
recommendation that SOAPAction SHOULD NOT be used, but MAY be required in
certain
server implementations. A specific HTTP Status Code (427 proposed) shall be
registered with IANA for the purpose of providing a means by which a SOAP
Receiver
can indicate to a SOAP client that the SOAPAction Header Field is required.

The full text of the revised SOAPAction section (6.1.1) along with the
related
AIs can be found in the attachement to the email here:

     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2001Sep/0008.html

The editors have been asked to incorporate the change into the next draft
of the spec.

Cheers,

Chris