RE: COMMENTS/CORRECTIONS to V0.98

[Dick Brooks <dick@8760.com>]

I vote to keep SOAPAction:"ebXML" and fixing the
examples.

Dick

-----Original Message-----
From: David Fischer [mailto:david@drummondgroup.com]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 12:13 AM
To: Doug Bunting; Krishna Sankar; christopher ferris; Dick Brooks
Cc: Ebxml
Subject: RE: COMMENTS/CORRECTIONS to V0.98


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>

Did we decide on a value (if any) for SOAPAction?  In the spec (v0.98b lines
2339 & 2513) we specify the value of "ebXML" for SOAPAction but then we
leave it blank in both examples?

SOAP specifies that this header is required for HTTP although its value
(URI) is undefined and does not have to be resolvable.  I suppose that means
it could be NULL as in the examples but that seems kind of useless as a
redirector or dispatcher.  Shall we leave it as:

	SOAPAction:"ebXML"

and fix the examples to match?

Regards,

David Fischer
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Bunting [mailto:dougb62@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 7:21 PM
To: Krishna Sankar; christopher ferris; dick@8760.com
Cc: Ebxml
Subject: RE: COMMENTS/CORRECTIONS to V0.98


I'm not sure I understand why we have a requirement for a top level
redirector in the first place.  The SOAP framework starts from a need
to combine multiple semantics into a single document.  The ebXML
Transport headers could be handled in parallel with a separate S2ML
Security processor and 3 others.  Aren't SOAP processors supposed to
divvy up the various elements under the SOAP:Header and SOAP:Body?

thanx,
    doug

--- Krishna Sankar <ksankar@cisco.com> wrote:
> 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


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text

------------------------------------------------------------------
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