RE: COMMENTS/CORRECTIONS to V0.98

[Scott Hinkelman <srh@us.ibm.com>]

I tend to agree with Krishna if indeed SOAP Action is the first detectable
processing indicator (meaning we can't switch to an ebXML handler purely
from SWA mime).

Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
XML Industry Enablement
IBM e-business Standards Strategy
512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074



Krishna Sankar <ksankar@cisco.com> on 03/27/2001 10:57:54 AM

To:   christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>, dick@8760.com
cc:   Ebxml <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org>
Subject:  RE: COMMENTS/CORRECTIONS to V0.98



Hi all,

     IMHO, we do need an ebXML URI for SOAP action. This will make it
easier for
software to send ebXML blocks to an ebXML handler. I am not an expert at
URIs but we should have something equivalent of ebXML:.... If we leave it
to
the services, we would lose this top level redirector ability.

cheers

|-----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
|


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