&w3soap; is a lightweight protocol that defines a method for the exchange of messages independently from the programming language and platform. For interoperability, the SOAP specification is also agnostic about possible transport protocols, though almost all existing implementations use mainly HTTP.

The primary limitation of HTTP consists in the fact that HTTP-based message exchanges allow only synchronous request-response semantics. To overcome this limitation, SMTP is often used to carry asynchronous messages, but it is a complex protocol and inefficient for passing short and frequent messages that should be delivered in close to real time.

Thus XMPP (see &xmppcore;) can be the ideal transport protocol for many of the application fields of web services, since it can carry efficiently and reliably both types of messages, synchronous and asynchronous. Moreover, XMPP-based web services will not need complex support protocols, such as WS-Routing and WS-Referral, in order to deliver messages to entities that cannot be identified by static public IP addresses. Therefore, this document defines a binding of SOAP to XMPP as an alternative to the existing HTTP and SMTP bindings.

(Note: The main body of this document provides descriptive text suitable for use by XMPP developers. A formal description of the SOAP XMPP Binding itself is provided in the section of this document entitled SOAP XMPP Binding.)

The usual architecture of XMPP is described in RFC 6120. In essence, XMPP is most commonly deployed using a client-server (or logical peer-to-peer) architecture quite similar to that of the email system, except that XMPP does not have multiple hops between servers, enforces domain names to prevent address spoofing, and enables channel encryption (via TLS) and authentication (via SASL) between client and server as well as among servers.

The binding of SOAP to XMPP assumes that most SOAP-enabled XMPP entities will be implemented as XMPP clients that communicate with other entities as logical peers. However, in order to deploy more scalable services, such entities could also be implemented as server-side components (see &xep0114;) or even as special-purpose XMPP servers.

The SOAP specification defines the concepts of "SOAP intermediary" and "ultimate SOAP receiver" (see Section 1.5.3 of SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1). In general, this specification assumes that XMPP entities that support the SOAP XMPP Binding will be ultimate SOAP receivers, since SOAP intermediaries tend to be artifacts of the existing SOAP bindings (HTTP and SMTP) rather than applicable to all possible bindings. SOAP intermediaries are usually deployed in order to (1) cross trust boundaries in protocols that do not enforce domain names or authenticate end-points, (2) ensure scalability, (3) secure messages sent over unencrypted channels, and (4) provide message tracing. However, these issues are addressed natively in XMPP (e.g., channel encryption is defined in RFC 6120), in XMPP extensions (e.g., message tracing is defined in &xep0079;), or in deployment decisions such as business level agreements between XMPP domains. One final justification for SOAP intermediaries is to act as gateways between different transport mechanisms (e.g., between HTTP and SMTP), and XMPP entities may well be SOAP intermediaries for that reason. For further details about gateways between XMPP and other SOAP bindings, refer to the Implementation Notes section of this document.

Section 4 of &w3soap1; defines a SOAP Protocol Binding Framework; two instantiations of that framework are the SOAP HTTP Binding (specified in Section 7 of &w3soap2;) and the &w3soapemail;. (Additionally, a binding to BEEP is described in RFC 4227.) As an alternative to the HTTP and Email bindings, this section formally defines the SOAP XMPP Binding in accordance with the SOAP Protocol Binding Framework.

Note: The SOAP XMPP Binding is optional, and SOAP nodes are not required to implement it. A SOAP node that correctly and completely implements the SOAP XMPP Binding as described herein may be said to "conform to the SOAP 1.2 XMPP Binding".

The main body of text that addresses the requirements of the W3C with regard to SOAP bindings is provided in the SOAP XMPP Binding section of this document. The current section addresses only the topic of organizational interaction between the W3C and the &XSF; regarding the SOAP XMPP Binding.

SOAP provides its own encoding scheme for errors due to message processing or application execution, and it uses SOAP envelopes for reporting. In the SOAP HTTP Binding, these errors are mapped to corresponding HTTP status codes. In the SOAP XMPP Binding, they are mapped to the catch-all XMPP error of &undefined; along with application-specific error condition elements qualified by the 'http://jabber.org/protocol/soap#fault' namespace (this is consistent with RFC 6120, see also &xep0086;). The element names of these application-specific error conditions map directly to the SOAP fault codes specified in Section 5.4.6 of SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1.

The following table provides a mapping between SOAP, HTTP, and application-specific XMPP errors.

Note: When errors are due to the XMPP transport protocol alone and not to the application layer defined by SOAP, errors MUST be reported with standard XMPP error codes only instead of the XMPP &undefined; condition plus application-specific condition.

SOAP has been supplemented by several support protocols that help ensure message integrity and confidentiality (WS-Security WS-Security <http://msdn.microsoft.com/ws/2002/04/Security/>.) as well as transaction management for failing message exchanges (see WS-Transaction). These protocols are all based on SOAP messages and take into account that the underlying protocols can be unreliable and not trusted, thus there are no arguments against their application with XMPP. Alternatively, implementations MAY use native XMPP security such as &xmppe2e;.

No interaction with &IANA; is required by this document.

This section is non-normative.

An XMPP entity that supports the SOAP XMPP binding could function as a "SOAP intermediary" that hands a SOAP message off to some other deployment for subsequent processing (HTTP, email, a specialized enterprise messaging platform, etc.) rather than functioning as the "ultimate SOAP receiver" for the message (as these terms are defined in Section 1.5.3 of SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1). If the intended recipient functions as a SOAP intermediary, implementations should be aware that subsequent processing may alter the representation of SOAP messages.

As an example, consider a component that functions as a gateway between XMPP-based and HTTP-based web services. Its purpose might be to mix HTTP and XMPP for web services and to invoke any web services already accessible through HTTP from XMPP clients.

WS-Routing, whose aim is to dynamically compose SOAP message paths and processing sequences, can be used in order to reference web services outside of an XMPP network from within it. WS-Routing extends SOAP Envelope Headers with the <path/> element, which specifies the following for the message: the sender's URL (<from/>), the final destination's URL (<to/>), a forward (<forward/>) path with an arbitrary number of intermediaries (<via/>), and an optional return path (<reverse/>). Each intermediary MUST process the <path/> header and update it accordingly to the already performed path; moreover it MAY process the Body of the message.

A SOAP message originated by an XMPP entity ('xmpp:orig@A.example.com/soap'), and directed to an end point accessible through HTTP ('http://C.example.net/some/endpoint'), could be built using a <path/> header having:

1. the <to/> element set to 'http://C.example.net/some/endpoint'
2. one <via/> element set to an HTTP<->XMPP gateway, such as 'xmpp:soapgw@B.example.org/soap', in the forward path
3. an appropriate SOAP action in the <action> element of the <path/> header (this may be required by the HTTP end point)
4. a blank return path

Then the SOAP message can be sent within an &IQ; stanza to the gateway's JID. The gateway processes the SOAP headers, and looking through the headers it discovers that it must act only as intermediary. From the <to/> element it reads the URL of the final end point, extracts the SOAP action, changes the path removing the step already performed, and issues an HTTP request with the modified envelope and appropriate HTTP headers. Once it has received a response, it prepares a new &IQ; stanza of type "result" or "error" and sends its reply to the original requester. The following example shows the possible SOAP headers of the described process.

Generic XMPP routers that conform to RFC 6120 may also "store and forward" Jabber messages. This feature is usually called "offline message handling": the router makes a decision as to whether to deliver the message to the local intended recipient based on the recipient's presence, and if the recipient is offline when the router processes the message then it may store the message for delivery when the recipient next comes online (rather than returning an error to the sender). Although it is possible to write an XMPP router that directly supports the SOAP XMPP binding and implements the SOAP processing model, generic XMPP routers do not contain such support. Accordingly, generic XMPP routers will not forward an XMPP message to an alternate SOAP transport such as HTTP or SMTP, or provide other functions of a SOAP intermediary or ultimate receiver. When a generic XMPP router delivers a message to the intended recipient (whether immediately or as delayed in "offline storage") and the intended recipient supports the SOAP XMPP binding, SOAP processing is performed; such an intended recipient MAY act either as a SOAP intermediary or as an ultimate SOAP receiver.

With regarding to exchange of associated data, an XMPP entity that functions as a gateway to other SOAP bindings it SHOULD use W3C-recommended protocols for transporting SOAP attachments over non-XMPP SOAP bindings (e.g., HTTP and SMTP) when communicating with non-XMPP entities.

Many thanks to Noah Mendelsohn for his assistance regarding SOAP binding definitions and conformance issues. Thanks also to Michael Mahan and Rich Salz for their comments.

Some text in the SOAP XMPP Binding section of this document is closely modelled on Section 7 of SOAP Version 1.2 Part 2 and on SOAP Version 1.2 Email Binding.