SOAP 1.2 Part 3: One-Way MEP

W3C Working Draft 19 December 2006

This version:
Latest version:
David Orchard, BEA Systems


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 section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at http://www.w3.org/TR/.

This is the First Public Working Draft of the SOAP 1.2 Part 3: One-Way MEP document. It has been produced by the XML Protocol Working Group which is part of the Web Services Activity. The current intention of the Working Groups is to issue the final version of this specification as a Working Group Note.

Comments on this document are welcome. Please send them to the public mailing-list xmlp-comments@w3.org (archive). It is inappropriate to send discussion email to this address.

This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. The group does not expect this document to become a W3C Recommendation. W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy.

Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.

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


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 receiver, 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/InboundMessage An 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/OutboundMessage An 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/ImmediateDestination The 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/ImmediateSender The 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)

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.