OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

bdxr message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [bdxr] SMP specification issue

Hi Pim

As promised we discussed your question at our meeting yesterday. The question relates not to SMP but to BDXL and how SMP should be addressed from a BDXL location service:

BDXL uses the service-parms service parameter of the U-NAPTR record (the app-service service parameter is reserved for IANA registered services). The service-parms parameter does not have any length restrictions, however the convention is to use the format "app-service:app-protocol" for this record, as is both stated in RFC 4848 as well as in BDXL. BDXL requires that networks using SMP makes use of one or more of the service fields "Meta:SMP" or "Register:SMP".

There then remains an editorial issue with the BDXL specification in that it should have mentioned that these service fields are references to SMP version 1.0 (identified by its namespace http://docs.oasis-open.org/bdxr/ns/SMP/2014/07), however as the BDXL specification was finalized considerably before the SMP specification this wasn't possible at the time of editing. The TC has made a note to include this in future editions of BDXL.

From a functional perspective we have not identified any issues.

Best regards,


From: bdxr@lists.oasis-open.org [bdxr@lists.oasis-open.org] on behalf of Pim van der Eijk [pvde@sonnenglanz.net]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 11:52 AM
To: bdxr@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [bdxr] SMP specification issue


The SMP specification has the following text:

3.5 Referencing the SMP REST binding

For referencing the SMP REST binding, for example from Business Document Metadata Service Location records, the following identifier should be used for the version 1.0 of the SMP REST binding:


This is identical to the target namespace of the SMP schema.

I think this intended to state that this URI value is to be used as the value for the app-service field in the U-NAPTR resource record.    Is that correct?
If that is the intention,  then there is the following problem:

According to RFC 4848, which BDXL references, 
The app-service and app-protocol tags are limited to 32 characters

The above URI has a length of 46 characters.

Kind Regards,


P.S.   I would also appreciate any feedback on my smp:Certificate question from two weeks ago.    

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]