RE: MIME Envelope Optional?

["Miller, Robert (GXS)" <Robert.Miller@gxs.ge.com>]

Chris,

As I read the argument for disallowing any payload in the SOAP-ENV:Body, it
was that then the ebXML data would always be in the same place.  This flowed
from a concern that one might place the ebXML payload in EITHER the
SOAP-ENV:Body or in an attachment.  As you note below, ebXML payloads
containing acknowledgements etc would still show up in SOAP-ENV:Body.  So
where is the eloquence in all that?  Eloquence is always placing the ebXML
payload (if one exists) in SOAP-ENV:Body.  That is, eloquence in sense you
use it is brought to the table by my proposal, not by the proposal to place
the (user) ebXML payload in an attachment!

Cheers,
        Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: christopher ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 1:16 PM
To: Miller, Robert (GXS)
Cc: ebXML Transport Mailing List
Subject: Re: MIME Envelope Optional?


"Miller, Robert (GXS)" wrote:
> 
> I did not here any discussion in Vancouver whether the MIME envelope might
> be optional in cases where the message payload contained only XML syntax.
> It seems logical to me that the MIME envelope would be optional in such
> cases.
> 
> Cheers,
>         Bob
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-transport-request@lists.ebxml.org

If we disallow any "payload" in the SOAP-ENV:Body element, as has been
suggested and eloquently argued, then this would never be the case.

However, an acknowledgment, error (SOAP:Fault) or StatusData message
which have no business "payload" *could* be sent absent the MIME
packaging. Now the question becomes, is this what we want?

Cheers,

Chris