RE: MIME Envelope Optional?

[Dick Brooks <dick@8760.com>]

I agree with Marc; keep the payload a MIME body part and use the SOAP
envelope for header data only. I would also support having a statement in
the spec that makes a strong recommendation to use a single MIME body part
for application payloads, but not restrict implementers from using multiple
body parts.

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: Marc Breissinger [mailto:marcb@webmethods.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 2:19 PM
> To: Miller, Robert (GXS)
> Cc: ebXML Transport Mailing List
> Subject: RE: MIME Envelope Optional?
>
>
> List-Unsubscribe:
>  <mailto:ebxml-transport-request@lists.ebxml.org?body=unsubscribe>
> 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=help>
>
> 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