RE: COMMENTS/CORRECTIONS to V0.98

[Dick Brooks <dick@8760.com>]

Chris,

> ebXML. Secondly, the value of SOAPAction is supposed to be an URI
> as defined in RFC 2396. ebXML is NOT an URI by any stretch of one's
> imagination whether encapsulated in quotes or otherwise.

I must disagree with your assertion that "ebXML" is not a URI. I believe
"ebXML" is a
valid "relative-path reference" URI, based on my interpretation of section
5,
"Relative URI References", in RFC 2396, which states:

  "A relative reference that does not begin with a scheme name or a
   slash character is termed a relative-path reference.

      rel_path      = rel_segment [ abs_path ]

      rel_segment   = 1*( unreserved | escaped |
                          ";" | "@" | "&" | "=" | "+" | "$" | "," )"

The characters ebXML are members of the unreserved set within the
rel_segment definition above.


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: christopher ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 10:34 AM
> To: Dick Brooks
> Cc: Ebxml
> Subject: Re: COMMENTS/CORRECTIONS to V0.98
>
>
> Actually, there are two issues here. One is, that I had thought
> that we agreed that there would NOT be a SOAPAction defined for
> ebXML. Secondly, the value of SOAPAction is supposed to be an URI
> as defined in RFC 2396. ebXML is NOT an URI by any stretch of one's
> imagination whether encapsulated in quotes or otherwise.
>
> SOAPAction is mandatory, but a null or empty value
> is also valid. IMHO, SOAPAction should be allowed to
> be determined by the owner of the deployed service.
>
> I would prefer:
>
> 	The mandatory SOAPAction HTTP header field must be included
> 	in the HTTP header. The value of the SOAPAction header is
> 	unspecified by this specification.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
> Dick Brooks wrote:
> >
> > Please note the requirement to encapsulate SOAPAction values
> within "", e.g.
> > SOAPAction: "ebXML".
> >
> > 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: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen [mailto:frystyk@microsoft.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 10:00 AM
> > > To: Dick Brooks; XP-PUBLIC
> > > Subject: RE: ebXML Messaging Service Specification available for 2nd
> > > review
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dick,
> > >
> > > Just a quick comment on the use of SOAPAction - it says in line 2339
> > > that
> > >
> > >       The mandatory SOAPAction HTTP header field must also be included
> > >       in the HTTP header and must have a value of ebXML.
> > >
> > >               SOAPAction: ebXML
> > >
> > > And it is mentioned again in line 2339 for the SMTP binding. For the
> > > HTTP binding at least, the format of the SOAPAction field is a URI, as
> > > per SOAP/1.1 [1]
> > >
> > >       soapaction    = "SOAPAction" ":" [ <"> URI-reference <"> ]
> > >       URI-reference = <as defined in RFC 2396 [4]>
> > >
> > > Including quotes so for compliance with SOAP I propose that
> this is the
> > > format that ebXML uses as well.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps,
> > >
> > > Henrik
> > >
> > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383528
> > >
> > > >The latest draft of ebXML's Message Service Specification,
> > > >which utilizes SOAP V1.1 and SOAP with Attachments, is now
> > > >available for review at:
> > >
>http://www.ebxml.org/specdrafts/ebXML_Message_Service_Specification_v0.
> > 98b.pdf
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-transport-request@lists.ebxml.org