Re: Latest packaging spec...

[Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@vitria.com>]

Dick,

Please see below follow-up on my second (header-content-type) issue.

Thanks.

"Dick Brooks (E)" wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@vitria.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 5:07 PM

• Header container also needs to be of a flexible type like the payload and not fixed at application/xml since,

1. We expect more than one header part in the ebXML header. Per the latest Header specification sent out by David Burdett, the header can have parts for "Message Routing Info", "Message Routing History", "Signatures", "Errors?" etc.
2. Even if we think some of these headers can be sub-elements/sections of the same XML document, it seems other parts (e.g. signatures) need to be separate at least as of now (since xml-dsig specifications / implementations are not mature yet). Also, it might be needed to put the routing headers in a separate (XML) document so that it can be updated (and signed) independent of the rest of the header sections.


Hence I would also like to recommend we make the header content-type also flexible with Content-Id value of "ebxmlheader" clearly identifying it as ebXML header.
<db> Actually I think this is already the case, reference section 4.5.1 at the bottom of page 11.</db>

<PY>
Dick,
The content-Id already is "ebxmlheader" as you
correctly point above. My issue is with the content-type.
On page 12, it is currently specifed as a fixed type, "application/xml"
in section 4.5.3.  I am suggesting we make it a flexible type(like
payload).
</PY>
> > Thanks, Prasad