RE: [ebxml-msg] SOAP 1.2 MTOM and ebMS v3

Perhaps this issue should be raised in the Registry TC instead of Messaging? As far as I know there was an ebXML Messaging SMTP interface to ebXML Registry v2.0 and some interest to upgrade this to v3.0 from IHE, but did this ever happen? Is the request about upgrading the simple SOAP interface to use MTOM? But then the next request would be to upgrade the interface to support addressing, and security, and reliability, and ...

Should we update the ebMS interface to Registry v3.0? Now that we are getting closer to having all ebXML modules to a 3.0 level, we definitely should look at providing ebMS 3.0 Sync and Push-and-Pull (client Pushes request to, pulls responses from, registry) interfaces. The mapping of ebRS to ebMS2 or ebMS3 (via ebCPA2/3) did not seem to be a complex challenge, last time I checked ..

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] SOAP 1.2 MTOM and ebMS v3
From: Ric Emery <remery@us.axway.com>
Date: Thu, April 05, 2007 12:28 pm
To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>, <ian.c.jones@bt.com>
Cc: <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>

SOAP with attachments is expressly supported in the ebMS 3.0 core features. MTOM support is not mentioned.
I would be concerned with MTOM usage since there is no mention of MTOM in the ebMS 3.0 spec. My opinion is that it would be problematic for an MSH to utilize MTOM without the specification outlining its use.

If MTOM usage is important the user base we should be able to discuss its use in a future addendum or part 2 of the ebMS 3 spec. Is there a reason that you think MTOM should be an option?

Thanks,
ric

On 4/5/07 9:04 AM, "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info> wrote:

Team,

How does this relate to ebMS v3 ?

http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-mtom/

Is it just transparent - in that if two ebMS are using SOAP 1.2 with MTOM - then they can exchange transmissions accordingly - but controlled by the CPA and ebMS settings? Or is MTOM re-inventing ebMS routing and handling and therefore likely to cause chaos?

Trying to figure out the implications here!

Thanks, DW

"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)

ebxml-msg message