Re: COMMENTS/CORRECTIONS to V0.98

[Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>]

We did discuss this but, I think it would ease a great deal of implementation
complexity / processing logic needed to recognize an incoming message to be an ebXML
message (so that it can be routed appropriately), if we have some sort of flag at the
transport headers level. SOAPAction seems to be a good one to use instead of inventing
another header.

Either way, we need to make the examples and the description of the SOAPAction
consistent with one another. Right now they are not.

Regards, Prasad

-----Original Message-----
|From: christopher ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
|Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 8:34 AM
|To: dick@8760.com
|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_Specificatio
|n_v0.
|> > 98b.pdf
|>