SOAP 1.2 Part 3: One-Way MEP

Editors Copy $Date$ 30 August 2006

This version:
http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/6/soap12-part3
Latest version:
http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/6/soap12-part3-20060830.html
Previous versions:
http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/6/soap12-part3-20060809.html ( xml ), http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/6/soap12-part3-20060804.html ( xml ), http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/6/soap12-part3-20060720.html ( xml )
Editor:
David Orchard, BEA Systems

Abstract

SOAP Version 1.2 Part 2 provides a request-response MEP and a response-only MEP. This, the SOAP 1.2 Part 3, provides a one-way MEP.

Status of this Document

This document is an editors' copy that has no official standing.

This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. The latest status of this document series is maintained at the W3C.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction
    1.1 Notational Conventions
2 SOAP One-way Message Exchange Pattern
    2.1 SOAP Feature Name
    2.2 Description
    2.3 Property Description
    2.4 Fault Handling
3 References
    3.1 Normative References
    3.2 Informative References

Appendix

A Change Log (Non-Normative)


1 Introduction

SOAP Version 1.2 Part 2 provides a request-response MEP and a response-only MEP. This, the SOAP 1.2 Part 3, provides a one-way MEP.

1.1 Notational Conventions

The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC 2119].

With the exception of examples and sections explicitly marked as "Non-Normative", all parts of this specification are normative.

2 SOAP One-way Message Exchange Pattern

This section defines the message exchange pattern (MEP) called "One-way". The description is an abstract presentation of the operation of this MEP. It is not intended to describe a real implementation or to suggest how a real implementation should be structured.

2.1 SOAP Feature Name

This message exchange pattern is identified by the URI (see SOAP 1.2 Part 1 [SOAP Part 1]SOAP Features):

  • "http://www.w3.org/2006/08/soap/mep/one-way/"

2.2 Description

The SOAP One-way MEP defines properties for the exchange of a SOAP message. In the absence of failure in the underlying protocol, this MEP consists of zero or more SOAP messages. The scope of a one-way MEP is limited to transmission of (nearly) identical messages from one sending node to zero or more receiving SOAP node(s); typically, in the case of multiple receivers, the messages differ only in their destinations. Implementations MAY choose to support multiple meps at the same time.

Editorial note 
The XML Protocols Workgroup solicits feedback on the question of whether this MEP should indeed provide support for transmission to more than one receiver, as described in this draft, or whether it should speak only of a single sender, a single receive, and a single message.

The sending node MUST send the SOAP Message provided in http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/OutboundMessage to the node(s) identified by http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/ImmediateDestination. The sender is not required to detect whether transmission succeeds or fails, but the sender SHOULD fault in a binding specific manner if it discovers that transmission is unsuccessful.

A receiving node MUST determine whether a given message is successfully received, and if so, MUST populate http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/InboundMessage with the received message and MUST process the message in http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/InboundMessage according to the SOAP Processing Model (see SOAP 1.2 Part 1 [SOAP Part 1]Processing SOAP messages). Determination of success by a receiver MAY be conservative, I.e. a receiver may in exceptional circumstances treat as erroneous or lost a message which is received intact (typical reasons for making such decisions might include shortage of buffer space, network interface overruns, etc.). A receiver MAY fault in a binding-specific manner if some particular message is declared in error (note, however, that in many cases where receipt is unsuccessful, information identifying the message or its sender may be unreliable, in which case there may be little if any value in reflecting a message-specific fault.)

Abnormal operation during a one-way message exchange might be caused by a failure to transfer the message or a failure at a receiving SOAP node to process the message. Such failures might be silent at either or all of the sending and recieving SOAP nodes involved, or might result in the generation of a SOAP or binding-specific fault (see 2.4 Fault Handling). Also, during abnormal operation each SOAP node involved in the message exchange might differ in its determination of the successful completion of the message exchange.

2.3 Property Description

The One-way MEP defines a set of properties described below.

Property definitions for One-way MEP
Property NameProperty DescriptionProperty Type
http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/InboundMessageAn abstract structure that represents the current inbound message in the message exchange. This abstracts both SOAP Envelope and any other information structures that are transferred along with the envelope. This property is populated if and only if the message is successfully received.Not specified
http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/OutboundMessageAn abstract structure that represents the current outbound message in the message exchange. This abstracts both SOAP Envelope and any other information structures that are transferred along with the envelope.Not specified
http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/ImmediateDestinationThe identifier of the immediate destination of an outbound message. (NOTE: the URI supplied MAY be the identifier of a single destination SOAP node, or MAY be the identifier of a multicast group, which itself consists of zero or more destination nodes. Whether multicast is supported is binding-dependent. This MEP specification provides no standard means for representing a multicast group, except to require that the group as a whole be designated by a URI.)xs:anyURI
http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/ImmediateSenderThe identifier of the immediate sender of an inbound message.xs:anyURI

There may be other properties related to the operation of the message exchange and are processed according to their own feature specifications.

2.4 Fault Handling

During the operation of the One-way MEP, the participating SOAP nodes may generate SOAP faults. This MEP makes no claims about the disposition or handling of SOAP faults generated by the sending SOAP node or the receiving SOAP node.

3 References

3.1 Normative References

SOAP Part 1
W3C Proposed Recommendation "SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework", Martin Gudgin, Marc Hadley, Noah Mendelsohn, Jean-Jacques Moreau, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen, 24 June 2003 (See http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part1-20030624/)
RFC 2119
IETF "RFC 2119: Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", S. Bradner, March 1997. (See http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt)
RFC 3986
IETF "RFC 3986: Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, L. Masinter, January 2005. (See http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt)

3.2 Informative References

SOAP Part 0
W3C Proposed Recommendation "SOAP Version 1.2 Part 0: Primer", Nilo Mitra, 24 June 2003 (See http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part0-20030624/)
SOAP Part 2
W3C Proposed Recommendation "SOAP Version 1.2 Part 2: Adjuncts", Martin Gudgin, Marc Hadley, Noah Mendelsohn, Jean-Jacques Moreau, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen, 24 June 2003 (See http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624/)
XMLP Comments
XML Protocol Comments Archive (See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/)
XMLP Dist-App
XML Protocol Discussion Archive (See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/)
XMLP Charter
XML Protocol Charter (See http://www.w3.org/2000/09/XML-Protocol-Charter)
RFC 2045
IETF "RFC2045: Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies", N. Freed, N. Borenstein, November 1996. (See http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2045.txt)
RFC 2026
IETF "RFC 2026: The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", section 4.2.3, S. Bradner, October 1996. (See http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt)

A Change Log (Non-Normative)

Changes
WhoWhenWhat
DBO20041208Initial Revision
DBO200603302nd Revision
DBO20060530Adding sending and receiver MUSTs
DBO20060720Update date parts, checked into cvs, and moved abnormal operation paragraph to end of 2.2
DBO20060803Added InboundMessage property and text about populating, removed State property, other minor edits. Moved to xmlspec 2.10 dtd and xmlspec.xsl 1.54 (2005/10/13)
DBO20060809Removed failureReason property, explicit support for multicast by saying 0 or more nodes, changing "the receiver" to "a receiver" etc.
DBO20060830Some more clarifications on multicast, added ednote for feedback.