[ebxml-msg] SOAP with Attachments Interop testing

[Dick Brooks <dick@systrends.com>]

It appears from the attached thread that some SOAP vendors are interested in performing interoperability tests of the SOAP with Attachments (SwA) functionality as part of an upcoming SOAP interop test. 

 

I view this discussion of SwA interoperability testing as a positive step for developers of ebXML's Message Service. I encourage any SOAP developers monitoring this list to support and participate in SwA interoperability testing with the soapbuilders group.

 

Regards, 

Dick Brooks
Systrends, Inc
7855 South River Parkway, Suite 111
Tempe, Arizona 85284
Web: www.systrends.com <http://www.systrends.com>
Phone:480.756.6777,Mobile:205-790-1542,eFax:240-352-0714
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Wes Moulder [mailto:wes@themindelectric.com]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 5:51 PM
To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] 9-May-2002 con call

Scott,

Awesome, thanks.  (If anyone remembers anything further from the call, feel free to throw it in the pot, of course).  My personal feel is that there are 3 issues that we keep hearing about: 

 

1) Soap with Attachments and the interoperability there.

2) Security in some manner.

3) Hashtables. (I’m going to keep beating this drum)

 

It looks like number 2 is covered in your list, though it’s very HTTP specific, and I would like to see more transport independent measures.  How many people implement their own HTTP layer?  We do, but I don’t believe that’s common.  Do we really need a face to face discussion to make sure that our HTTP implementations talk to each other correctly?

I know that Microsoft isn’t planning on implementing SwA, but I think the vendors who *are* implementing it should do some testing, even if Microsoft won’t participate.  I recently ran into an issue between XMLBus and GLUE, which points to an error in the WSDL spec. (the MIME binding examples don’t have a name attribute on the mime parts, but the schema for the mime parts says that it’s required.)  Things like this should be addressed via this group.

Number 3 is probably not going to happen, but like I said, I’m going to keep beating this drum, as I think it’s something that people will attempt to use, and a hash is a common data structure.  Some others have seen this as an issue, and added echoMap to their implementations of the round 2 tests. (Causing lots of errors on the consoles of those of us who don’t implement this method. :P)

 

Those three are all things I’d like to see tested,

--Wes

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Seely [mailto:sseely@microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 2:38 PM
To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] 9-May-2002 con call

 

*************WARNING****************

The following is from memory. I will not be held accountable for much, other than saying “Yup, you remember things differently”. You have been warned.

***********END WARNING**************

 

1.      WSDL testing is targeted

2.      Security Interop via Digest, Basic, and SSL is added to the list of things to test.

3.      Plans are to finish up any testing that was still in progress at the last F2F.

4.      Sam Ruby has reserved the facility in Almaden for June 3-4. He will follow up with more details soon.

 

Close enough?

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Wes Moulder [mailto:wes@themindelectric.com]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 12:18 PM
To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] 9-May-2002 con call

 

Scott,

I was unable to participate in the conference call on Thursday.  Is it possible for someone to post an overview of what was discussed?

--Wes

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Seely [mailto:sseely@microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 2:19 PM
To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [soapbuilders] 9-May-2002 con call

 

During Thursday's concall, I suggested adding Digest authentication to
the testing matrix. The good news is that everyone agreed to it. The bad
news is that one participant on the call mentioned something about
passing the digest auth information via the SOAP message. I was a bit
flummoxed by this and didn't respond immediately. Let me state now that
I do not want to encourage Interop amongst implementations by defining a
non-standard way of passing a nonce and authentication info. What I want
to see is that the various SOAP implementations are able to take
advantage of HTTP Digest Authentication the same way that most can take
advantage of HTTP Basic Authentication + SSL today. I don't think the
group should be working on WS-Security type Interop for the June F2F.

Agreed?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues.  Please stay on-topic.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------
This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues.  Please stay on-topic.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

 

Dick Brooks
Systrends, Inc
7855 South River Parkway, Suite 111
Tempe, Arizona 85284
Web: www.systrends.com <http://www.systrends.com>
Phone:480.756.6777,Mobile:205-790-1542,eFax:240-352-0714
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Brooks [mailto:dick@tech-comm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 11:03 AM
To: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: FW: [soapbuilders] 9-May-2002 con call

It appears from the attached thread that some SOAP vendors are interested in performing interoperability tests of the SOAP with Attachments (SwA) functionality as part of an upcoming SOAP interop test. 

 

I view this discussion of SwA interoperability testing as a positive step for developers of ebXML's Message Service. I encourage any SOAP developers monitoring this list to support and participate in SwA interoperability testing with the soapbuilders group.

 

Regards, 

Dick Brooks
Systrends, Inc
7855 South River Parkway, Suite 111
Tempe, Arizona 85284
Web: www.systrends.com <http://www.systrends.com>
Phone:480.756.6777,Mobile:205-790-1542,eFax:240-352-0714
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Wes Moulder [mailto:wes@themindelectric.com]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 5:51 PM
To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] 9-May-2002 con call

Scott,

Awesome, thanks.  (If anyone remembers anything further from the call, feel free to throw it in the pot, of course).  My personal feel is that there are 3 issues that we keep hearing about: 

 

1) Soap with Attachments and the interoperability there.

2) Security in some manner.

3) Hashtables. (I’m going to keep beating this drum)

 

It looks like number 2 is covered in your list, though it’s very HTTP specific, and I would like to see more transport independent measures.  How many people implement their own HTTP layer?  We do, but I don’t believe that’s common.  Do we really need a face to face discussion to make sure that our HTTP implementations talk to each other correctly?

I know that Microsoft isn’t planning on implementing SwA, but I think the vendors who *are* implementing it should do some testing, even if Microsoft won’t participate.  I recently ran into an issue between XMLBus and GLUE, which points to an error in the WSDL spec. (the MIME binding examples don’t have a name attribute on the mime parts, but the schema for the mime parts says that it’s required.)  Things like this should be addressed via this group.

Number 3 is probably not going to happen, but like I said, I’m going to keep beating this drum, as I think it’s something that people will attempt to use, and a hash is a common data structure.  Some others have seen this as an issue, and added echoMap to their implementations of the round 2 tests. (Causing lots of errors on the consoles of those of us who don’t implement this method. :P)

 

Those three are all things I’d like to see tested,

--Wes

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Seely [mailto:sseely@microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 2:38 PM
To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] 9-May-2002 con call

 

*************WARNING****************

The following is from memory. I will not be held accountable for much, other than saying “Yup, you remember things differently”. You have been warned.

***********END WARNING**************

 

1.      WSDL testing is targeted

2.      Security Interop via Digest, Basic, and SSL is added to the list of things to test.

3.      Plans are to finish up any testing that was still in progress at the last F2F.

4.      Sam Ruby has reserved the facility in Almaden for June 3-4. He will follow up with more details soon.

 

Close enough?

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Wes Moulder [mailto:wes@themindelectric.com]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 12:18 PM
To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] 9-May-2002 con call

 

Scott,

I was unable to participate in the conference call on Thursday.  Is it possible for someone to post an overview of what was discussed?

--Wes

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Seely [mailto:sseely@microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 2:19 PM
To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [soapbuilders] 9-May-2002 con call

 

During Thursday's concall, I suggested adding Digest authentication to
the testing matrix. The good news is that everyone agreed to it. The bad
news is that one participant on the call mentioned something about
passing the digest auth information via the SOAP message. I was a bit
flummoxed by this and didn't respond immediately. Let me state now that
I do not want to encourage Interop amongst implementations by defining a
non-standard way of passing a nonce and authentication info. What I want
to see is that the various SOAP implementations are able to take
advantage of HTTP Digest Authentication the same way that most can take
advantage of HTTP Basic Authentication + SSL today. I don't think the
group should be working on WS-Security type Interop for the June F2F.

Agreed?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues.  Please stay on-topic.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------
This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues.  Please stay on-topic.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues.  Please stay on-topic.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

-----------------------------------------------------------------
This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues.  Please stay on-topic.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.