[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [ebxml-msg] Issue#10: 2.1.2 Message Package
David's comments in the updated issues list he distributed disagreed with the proposed editorial change. My rationale for changing "may" to "can" in this context is to remove any possible confusion w/r/t interpretation of our intent here. RFC2119 reserves the word MAY for reflecting optionality. In the context here, it is not expressing optionality but choice or preference. I will grant that we've used lower case "may" in this context, but this will (IMO) lead only to confusion. We've been around the block on this issue of RFC2119 usage a number of times. I think it critical that we leave no room for doubt especially as not all readers of the specification will have english as their first language and may not catch subtleties. Line 510 currently reads: "Implementations MUST support non-multipart messages, which may occur when there is no ebXML payload. An ebXML message may be sent either as a plain SOAP message or as a [SOAPATTACH] multipart message with one body part." Our intent here is to require that either form be supported by a receiving node, but that a sending node MAY choose which packaging mechanism to use. What this amounts to is that there are really two perspectives at play here, sending and receiving ebMS nodes. The sending MSH node actually *does* have an OPTION, from an implementation perspective, as it can choose to package the message either way, where as the receiving MSH MUST be prepared to process either form. I would actually suggest that this issue be addressed not solely by changing the "may" to a "can" by by being explicit as to what we mean here. I would therefore propose that we replace the paragraph at line 510 in David's draft with the following text: An ebMS MSH implementation MAY package a message containing no application payload, as in the case of an Acknowledgment message carrying no application payload, either as a multipart/related message as described in [SOAPATTACH] containing a single body part, or as described in [SOAP] using the text/xml MIME content-type. An ebMS MSH implementation MUST be capable of processing received messages that arrive in either form. Cheers, Chris
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC