RE: Doug's Version proposal

[Doug Bunting <Doug@ariba.com>]

David,

> The version in the MIME envelope...
I can see that utility and wouldn't want to tie these semantics to the
version of the contained ebXML Header document.  My current proposal handles
this separation correctly.  If you feel we need additional words about
additional uses for this particular MIME version attribute, that should be
considered separately (and later).

> Also, errorList will now assume the version number of the complete schema
and doesn't need one of its own.
This is exactly why my comments on the old ebXMLError element are no longer
relevant.

thanx,
	doug

-----Original Message-----
From: Burdett, David [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com]
Sent: January 5, 2001 11:45
To: 'Doug Bunting'; ebXML Transport (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Doug's Version proposal

The version in the MIME envelope indicates, for example that it is
multi-part related, the ebXML header MIME part comes first and the
**single** payload MIME part comes next. I would have thought that this is
useful information as in the future we might want to change it to allow, for
example, ebXML headers inside an XP outer envelope. Thoughts?

Also, errorList will now assume the version number of the complete schema
and doesn't need one of its own.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Bunting [mailto:Doug@ariba.com]
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 11:05 AM
To: Burdett, David; ebXML Transport (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Doug's Version proposal

David,

A reasonable question.  My take on this is reflected in the proposal.
- The payload envelope doesn't have an ebXML version attribute because the
semantics of that envelope are tied to its contents.
- The version attribute of the header envelope MUST match that of the
contained XML document.  It was my understanding we added that particular
attribute precisely to provide an early warning of the version used within.
- The outermost MIME envelope shouldn't require a particular version.
(Partially, this reflects my feeling that this particular attribute doesn't
provide that much value.)  I don't see a reason to prevent an ebXML TRP 2.0
ebXML Header envelope and document to be transferred within an ebXML TRP 1.0
ebXML envelope (or visa versa).

While I'm thinking about it, note: My comments on the ebXMLError element are
no longer relevant.  If that element (which is no longer used as a top-level
element) or its replacement ErrorList mentions a version attribute in the
text or schema, the attribute should be removed.

thanx,
	doug

-----Original Message-----
From: Burdett, David [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com]
Sent: January 5, 2001 09:49
To: ebXML Transport (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Doug's Version proposal

Doug

Your suggestions make sense. The only question I would have is should you
allow different version numbers on the MIME envelope the header envelope
and/or the payload envelope?

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 9:28 AM
To: ebXML Transport (E-mail)
Subject: Doug's Version proposal

http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-transport/200012/msg00181.html