RE: Additional MIME headers

[Stefano POGLIANI <stefano.pogliani@sun.com>]

Ok.
Thanks a lot for the clarification

Regards

/Stefano

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dick Brooks [mailto:dick@8760.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 4:22 PM
> To: stefano.pogliani@sun.com; ebXML Transport (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Additional MIME headers
> 
> 
> The HTTP spec (RFC 2616) is quite clear regarding "unrecognized headers",
> see the following excerpt from section 7.1:
> 
>    "7.1 Entity Header Fields
> 
>    [snip]...
> 
>    The extension-header mechanism allows additional entity-header fields
>    to be defined without changing the protocol, but these fields cannot
>    be assumed to be recognizable by the recipient. Unrecognized header
>    fields SHOULD be ignored by the recipient and MUST be forwarded by
>    transparent proxies."
> 
> 
> Dick Brooks
> Group 8760
> 110 12th Street North
> Birmingham, AL 35203
> dick@8760.com
> 205-250-8053
> Fax: 205-250-8057
> http://www.8760.com/
> 
> InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stefano POGLIANI [mailto:stefano.pogliani@sun.com]
> > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 5:16 AM
> > To: ebXML Transport (E-mail)
> > Subject: RE: Additional MIME headers
> >
> >
> > List-Unsubscribe:
> >  <mailto:ebxml-transport-request@lists.ebxml.org?body=subscribe>
> > List-Archive: <http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-transport>
> > List-Help: <http://lists.ebxml.org/doc/email-manage.html>,
> >  <mailto:ebxml-transport-request@lists.ebxml.org?body=lp>
> >
> > I am not an expert in all the protocols, so I cannot judge on 
> the attached
> > answer from Patil.
> >
> > If there wouldn't be such issues as the ones highlighted from
> > Patil, I would
> > say "report an error"since the fact that someone sends "more information
> > than the receiver expects" may be a symptom for a misunderstanding.
> >
> > But I would not object on the "ignore" policy if this is what 
> people want.
> >
> > Definitely I would not like to leave this choice to the
> > implementation since this
> > could generate some issues of compatibility in the runtime.
> >
> > /Stefano
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:Spatil@netfish.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 9:29 PM
> > > To: 'Burdett, David'; ebXML Transport (E-mail)
> > > Subject: RE: Additional MIME headers
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ignore them. If you consider SMTP being used for transport,
> > > there will be a lot of MIME headers inserted and  consumed
> > > by SMTP handlers, which are also exposed to ebXML MSH.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > > Sanjay Patil
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ----------
> > > ------------------------------
> > > Work Phone: 408 350 9619
> > > http://www.netfish.com
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Burdett, David [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 12:18 PM
> > > To: ebXML Transport (E-mail)
> > > Subject: Additional MIME headers
> > >
> > >
> > > Folks
> > >
> > > What do you think the behavior of a MSH should be if it
> > receives a message
> > > with additional MIME headers that are not specified in the 
> ebXML specs.
> > > Possible actions are:
> > > 1. Ingore them, or
> > > 2. Report an error.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > DAvid
> > >
> > > Product Management, Commerce One
> > > 4400 Rosewood Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94588, USA
> > > Tel: +1 (925) 520 4422 (also voicemail); Pager: +1 (888) 936 9599
> > > mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com; Web: http://www.commerceone.com
> > >
> >
> 
>