Re: COMMENTS/CORRECTIONS to V0.98

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

It isn't clear to me that requiring a specific value for SOAPAction 
is necessarily something that would ease implementation complexity.
I could live with a recommendation for a value, but not a requirement.

Cheers,

Chris

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