RE: MIME Envelope Optional?

[Marc Breissinger <marcb@webmethods.com>]

Again, I must go back to KISS and the idea of deviating as little as
possible from the original specification.  The case Chris brings up (i.e.,
no application payload) was entirely possible before the adoption of SOAP.
We did not do away with the MIME envelope then.  Why would we do away with
it now?  So, my vote on this issue is no.

Bob, we need to be careful in characterizing "payload."  There is no such
thing as 'ebXML payload', only application payload - and we have *always*
placed application payload in a separate MIME part.  It has never be part of
the same XML document as the ebXML header information.  IMHO, that is a very
simple rule and eloquent.  If we were to say payload always goes into the
SOAP Body, then we have to deal with the dirty work of encoding non-XML
application payload in the MSH (TRP is payload independent), or worse still,
forcing the application to do it.  Better to allow the MSH to not have to
deal with application payload at all, regardless of its type.

marc

-----Original Message-----
From: Miller, Robert (GXS) [mailto:Robert.Miller@gxs.ge.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 2:35 PM
To: Miller, Robert (GXS)
Cc: ebXML Transport Mailing List
Subject: RE: MIME Envelope Optional?


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

------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-transport-request@lists.ebxml.org