Re: MIME Envelope Optional?

[christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>]

I fully concur with Marc's comments.

Cheers,

Chris

Marc Breissinger wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-transport-request@lists.ebxml.org
begin:vcard 
n:Ferris;Christopher 
tel;work:781-442-3063
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Sun Microsystems, Inc;XML Technology Development
adr:;;One Network Drive;Burlington;Ma;01824-0903;USA
version:2.1
email;internet:chris.ferris@east.Sun.COM
title:Sr. Staff Engineer
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Christopher Ferris
end:vcard