Mark Nottingham, BEA Systems
Copyright © 2002-2003 by The Web Services-Interoperability Organization (WS-I) and Certain of its Members. All Rights Reserved.
This document defines the WS-I Simple SOAP Binding Profile 1.0, consisting of a set of non-proprietary Web services specifications, along with clarifications and amendments to those specifications which promote interoperability.
This document is a Working Group Draft; it has been accepted by the Working Group as reflecting the current state of discussions. It is a work in progress, and should not be considered authoritative or final; other documents may supersede this document.
The Web Services-Interoperability Organization (WS-I) would like to receive input, suggestions and other feedback ("Feedback") on this work from a wide variety of industry participants to improve its quality over time.
By sending email, or otherwise communicating with WS-I, you (on behalf of yourself if you are an individual, and your company if you are providing Feedback on behalf of the company) will be deemed to have granted to WS-I, the members of WS-I, and other parties that have access to your Feedback, a non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free license to use, disclose, copy, license, modify, sublicense or otherwise distribute and exploit in any manner whatsoever the Feedback you provide regarding the work. You acknowledge that you have no expectation of confidentiality with respect to any Feedback you provide. You represent and warrant that you have rights to provide this Feedback, and if you are providing Feedback on behalf of a company, you represent and warrant that you have the rights to provide Feedback on behalf of your company. You also acknowledge that WS-I is not required to review, discuss, use, consider or in any way incorporate your Feedback into future versions of its work. If WS-I does incorporate some or all of your Feedback in a future version of the work, it may, but is not obligated to include your name (or, if you are identified as acting on behalf of your company, the name of your company) on a list of contributors to the work. If the foregoing is not acceptable to you and any company on whose behalf you are acting, please do not provide any Feedback.
Feedback on this document should be directed to email@example.com.
1.1. Relationships to Other Profiles
1.2. Notational Conventions
2. Profile Conformance
3.1. Message Serialization
3.1.1. XML Envelope Serialization
3.1.2. Unicode BOMs
3.1.3. XML Declarations
3.1.4. Character Encodings
3.2. HTTP Behaviors
3.2.1. HTTP Client Error Status Codes
4.1.1. SOAP Binding Extensions
Appendix I: Referenced Specifications
Appendix II: Extensibility Points
Appendix III: Acknowledgements
This document defines the WS-I Simple SOAP Binding Profile 1.0 (hereafter, "Profile"), consisting of a set of non-proprietary Web services specifications, along with clarifications to and amplifications of those specifications which promote interoperability.
Section 1 introduces the Profile, and explains its relationships to other profiles.
Section 2, "Profile Conformance," explains what it means to be conformant to the Profile.
Each subsequent section addresses a component of the Profile, and consists of two parts; an overview detailing the component specifications and their extensibility points, followed by subsections that address individual parts of the component specifications. Note that there is no relationship between the section numbers in this document and those in the referenced specifications.
This Profile is derived from those Basic Profile 1.0 requirements related to the serialization of the envelope and its representation in the message, incorporating any errata to date. These requirements have been factored out of the Basic Profile 1.1 to enable other Profiles to be composable with it.
A combined claim of conformance to both the Basic Profile 1.1 and the Simple SOAP Binding Profile 1.0 should be equivalent to a claim of conformance to the Basic Profile 1.0.
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 RFC2119.
Normative statements in the Profile (i.e., those impacting conformance, as outlined in "Profile Conformance") are presented in the following manner:
RnnnnStatement text here.
where "nnnn" is replaced by the statement number. Each statement contains exactly one requirement level keyword (e.g., "MUST") and one conformance target keyword (e.g., "MESSAGE").
Some statements clarify the referenced specification(s), but do not place additional constraints upon implementations. For convenience, clarifications are annotated in the following manner: C
Some statements are derived from ongoing standardization work on the referenced specification(s). For convenience, such forward-derived statements are annotated in the following manner: xxxx, where "xxxx" is an identifier for the specification (e.g., "SOAP12" for SOAP Version 1.2). Note that because such work is not complete, the specification that the requirement is derived from may change; this information is included only as a convenience to implementers.
This specification uses a number of namespace prefixes throughout; their associated URIs are listed below. Note that the choice of any namespace prefix is arbitrary and not semantically significant.
Editors' note:Conformance Section TBD
This section of the Profile incorporates the following specifications by reference, and defines extensibility points within them;
SOAP 1.1 defines an XML structure for transmitting messages, the envelope. The Profile mandates the use of that structure, and places the following constraints on its use:
R9700 A MESSAGE MUST serialize the envelope as the exclusive payload of the HTTP entity-body.
R9701 A MESSAGE MUST serialize the envelope as XML 1.0.
R9702 A MESSAGE MUST have a "Content-Type" HTTP header field.
R9703 A MESSAGE's "Content-Type" HTTP header field MUST have a field-value whose media type is "text/xml".
XML 1.0 allows UTF-8 encoding to include a BOM; therefore, receivers of envelopes must be prepared to accept them. The BOM is mandatory for XML encoded as UTF-16.
R4001 A RECEIVER MUST accept envelopes that include the Unicode Byte Order Mark (BOM).C
Presence or absence of an XML declaration does not affect interoperability. Certain implementations might always precede their XML serialization with the XML declaration.
R1010 A RECEIVER MUST accept messages with envelopes that contain an XML Declaration. C
The Profile requires XML processors to support the "UTF-8" and "UTF-16" character encodings, in order to aid interoperability.
As a consequence of this, in conjunction with SOAP 1.1's requirement to use the "text/xml" media type (which has a default character encoding of "us-ascii") on envelopes, the "charset" parameter must always be present on the envelope's content-type. A further consequence of this is that the encoding pseudo-attribute of XML declaration within the message is always ignored, in accordance with the requirements of both XML 1.0 and RFC3023, "XML Media Types".
R1012 A MESSAGE MUST serialize the envelope using either UTF-8 or UTF-16 character encoding.
R1018 A MESSAGE's "Content-Type" HTTP header field-value MUST indicate the correct character encoding, using the "charset" parameter. C
HTTP uses the 4xx series of status codes to indicate failure due to a client error. Although there are a number of situations that may result in one of these codes, the Profile highlights those when the payload of the HTTP request does not have the proper media type ("text/xml", as required by the SOAP/HTTP binding), and when the anticipated method ("POST") is not used.
R1113 An INSTANCE SHOULD use a "400 Bad Request" HTTP status code, if a HTTP request message is malformed, or if an envelope is not well-formed XML 1.0.
R1115 An INSTANCE SHOULD use a "415 Unsupported Media Type" HTTP status code if a HTTP request message's Content-Type header field-value has media type that is not "text/xml".
Note that these requirements do not force an instance to respond to requests. In some cases, such as Denial of Service attacks, an instance may choose to ignore requests.
The Profile limits the choice of WSDL bindings to the well defined and most commonly used WSDL SOAP binding. WSDL 1.1 defined binding extensions for HTTP GET/POST and MIME, or any other attachments technology, are not permitted by the Profile.
wsdl:binding element in a DESCRIPTION MUST only use the WSDL SOAP Binding as
defined in WSDL 1.1 Section 3.
R9800 In a DESCRIPTION WSDL binding extension elements and attributes which cause messages on the wire to be non-conformant to the Profile MUST NOT be used.C
R9801 In a DESCRIPTION the WSDL MIME and HTTP GET/POST and DIME binding extensions MUST NOT appear in the SOAP binding.C
Note that this
places a requirement on the construction of conformant
wsdl:binding elements. It does not place a
requirement on descriptions as a whole; in particular, it does not preclude
WSDL documents from containing non-conformant
The following specifications' requirements are incorporated into the Profile by reference, except where superseded by the Profile:
This section identifies extensibility points, as defined in "Scope of the Profile," for the Profile's component specifications.
These mechanisms are out of the scope of the Profile; their use may affect interoperability, and may require private agreement between the parties to a Web service.
This Profile is the work of the WS-I Simple SOAP Binding Profile Working Group, whose members have included:
Mark Allerton (Crystal Decisions Corporation), George Arriola (Talking Blocks, Inc.), Keith Ballinger (Microsoft Corporation), Ilya Beyer (KANA), Rich Bonneau (IONA Technologies), Don Box (Microsoft Corporation), Andrew Brown (Verisign), Heidi Buelow (Quovadx), David Burdett (Commerce One, Inc.), Luis Felipe Cabrera (Microsoft Corporation), Maud Cahuzac (France Telecom), Bhaskar Chakrabarti (United Airlines), Chia Chao (IONA Technologies), Martin Chapman (Oracle Corporation), Richard Chin (Avinon), Roberto Chinnici (Sun Microsystems), Sergio Compean (Avanade, Inc.), Tim Cooke (Onyx Software), Ugo Corda (SeeBeyond Tech), Paul Cotton (Microsoft Corporation), Joseph Curran (Accenture), Ayse Dilber (AT&T), Dave Ehnebuske (IBM), Mark Ericson (Mindreef Inc.), Colleen Evans (Sonic Software), Tim Ewald (Microsoft Corporation), Chuck Fay (FileNet Corporation), Chris Ferris (IBM), Daniel Foody (Actional Corporation), Toru Fujii (NTT), Satoru Fujita (NEC Corporation), Shishir Garg (France Telecom), Yaron Goland (BEA Systems), Hans Granqvist (Verisign), Martin Gudgin (Microsoft Corporation), Marc Hadley (Sun Microsystems), Bob Hall (Unisys Corporation), Scott Hanselman (Corillian), Muir Harding (Autodesk, Inc.), Loren Hart (Verisign), Harry Holstrom (Accenture), Larry Hsiung (Quovadx), Hemant Jain (Tata Consultancy), Steve Jenisch (SAS Institute), Erik Johnson (Epicor Software Corporation), Bill Jones (Oracle Corporation), Menno Jonkers (Tryllian BV), Anish Karmarkar (Oracle Corporation), Takahiro Kawamura (Toshiba), Bhushan Khanal (WRQ, Inc.), Sunil Kunisetty (Oracle Corporation), Canyang Kevin Liu (SAP AG), Jonathan Marsh (Microsoft Corporation), David Meyer (Plumtree Software, Inc.), Jeff Mischkinsky (Oracle Corporation), Tom Moog (Sarvega Inc.), Gilles Mousseau (Hummingbird Ltd.), Richard Nikula (BMC Software, Inc.), Eisaku Nishiyama (Hitachi, Ltd.), Mark Nottingham (BEA Systems), David Orchard (BEA Systems), Jesse Pangburn (Quovadx), TJ Pannu (ContentGuard, Inc.), Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart (Sun Microsystems), Vijay Rajan (Novell), Eric Rajkovic (Oracle Corporation), Graeme Riddell (Bowstreet), Claus von Riegen (SAP AG), Tom Rutt (Fujitsu Limited), Roger Sanborn (Crystal Decisions Corporation), Krishna Sankar (Cisco Systems, Inc.), Don Schricker (Micro Focus), Dave Seidel (Mindreef Inc.), Akira Shimaya (NTT), Yasser Shohoud (Microsoft Corporation), David Smiley (Mercator Software, Inc.), Seumas Soltysik (IONA Technologies), Joseph Stanko (Plumtree Software, Inc.), Keith Stobie (Microsoft Corporation), Yasuo Takemoto (NTT), Nobuyoshi Tanaka (NEC Corporation), Jorgen Thelin (Cape Clear Software), Sameer Vaidya (Talking Blocks, Inc.), William Vambenepe (Hewlett-Packard), Rick Weil (Eastman Kodak Company), Scott Werden (WRQ, Inc.), Ajamu Wesley (IBM), Shannon Wheatley (Kinzan, Inc.), Ian White (Micro Focus), Sue Worthman (Tryllian BV), Prasad Yendluri (webMethods Inc.).