The nextMSH role was what we used in
version 2. And it was a role all MSHes were to assume. It does seem to be a
solution. I suggest we say that all intermediate MSHes should process in such a
way that the next hop is sent the same headers as those received when targeded
at nextMSH. This avoids the convoluted “remove and reinsert” language
and the warnings not to break the signature that we discussed. Just specify the
required results and not any words about what processing steps are taken…
From: Jacques R.
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009
To: Sander Fieten;
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Section
2.4.5 Compliance with the SOAP Intermediary Model: initial questions and
An ebms role would be the most compliant
But this role needs be assigned to
eb:Messaging header which is also indended to the ultimate receiver.
So end-point MSHs - not just
intermediaries - need also act in this role.
(which is good as I think message content
- at least for User message - should not depend on whether it goes through the
I-Cloud or not.)
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 2:46
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] Section
2.4.5 Compliance with the SOAP Intermediary Model: initial questions and
Surely we don’t want to
block “plain” SOAP Intermediaries, i.e. SOAP nodes that don’t
understand ebMS meta data, from processing SOAP messages part of an ebMS
The most easy way would of course be to define a new target role specific to
ebMS nodes / intermediaries. This way these headers are automatically ignored and forwarded by plain SOAP intermediaries
(see Table-3 in part 1 of the SOAP spec). This would impose a requirement on
the endpoint to supply these target in the messages.
Another option is not to require processing of the ebMS related SOAP headers by
setting “false” as the value for the mustUnderstand attribute. This
allows “plain” SOAP nodes to ignore the ebMS SOAP headers. Again
according to Table-3 of the SOAP spec this would however remove these headers
from the message unless the relay attribute exists with value
“true”. So the requirement on the endpoint would be to supply these
The option not to supply a role attribute with a SOAP header would set the
header targeted at the ultimateReceiver (see section 5.2.2 SOAP spec) and
therefore prevent it from being processed at all by any intermediary SOAP node
including the ebMS intermediary. This follows from the SOAP processing model
defined in section 2.6 of the SOAP spec and specific from rule #4 that states
that “A SOAP node MAY also choose to
process non-mandatory SOAP header blocks targeted
at it”. So headers not targeted at the node SHALL NOT be
Therefore in my opinion the headers that need processing by the ebMS
intermediaries should have a role attribute value which targets it at the
On 12/06/2009 21:03, "Jacques R. Durand" <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>For the ebMS header, we do not want a mere SOAP intermediary
to throw a SOAP fault
>because it does not grok ebMS. And we should architecturally allow mere
>But by targeting “next” and requiring ebMS header processing,
we block things.
I think the SOAP model has not given much thoughts to intermediaries that are
mere "routers", and therefore we should not be too eager to make the
ebms multi-hop use case "fit in" this model.
Clearly the concept of processing SOAP headers has been defined assuming that
whoever is targeted to do this processing, is the final consumer of this
header, and "re-insertion" appears to be mostly a kludge, a way out
some annoying corner case.
If we have a rationale for NOT adding @role - and
it looks like we might, given that the notion of "header processing"
falls short of supporting our case - I am all for it.
By not having this addition we also ensure that
any message good for a point-to-point exchange, can also be sent to the
I-Cloud, given the right routing function.
(we should make this one of our basic principles)
If not that introduces some embarrassing dependency to the topology.
From: Moberg Dale [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 8:42
Subject: [ebxml-msg] Section 2.4.5
Compliance with the SOAP Intermediary Model: initial questions and reservations
1. Versions: Is this section intended to apply to SOAP 1.2 only?
If so, is the first or second edition of 1.2 relevant?
2.There is a SOAP processing model mentioned in http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/
but nothing explicitly referred to by “SOAP intermediary model”
But consider Section 2.7 in the second edition, entitled,
“Relaying SOAP Messages”:
As mentioned earlier in this section, it is assumed that a SOAP
message originates at an initial SOAP sender and is sent to an ultimate SOAP
receiver via zero or more SOAP intermediaries. While SOAP does not itself
define any routing or forwarding semantics, it is anticipated that such
functionality can be described as one or more SOAP features (see 3. SOAP Extensibility Model <http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#extensibility>
). The purpose of this section is to describe how message forwarding interacts
with the SOAP distributed processing model.
ebMS does not make use of the SOAP Extensibility Model to define
forwarding. Therefore, what we are doing is not what “is
anticipated” So, should we really be discussing compliance? What exactly
is it that we are complying with? WS-I has not released any conformance Rxxxx
requirements targeted at intermediaries that I recall. We are not using the
extensibility model. I think the title of our section 2.4.5 is misleading.
3. “It is assumed that ebMS Intermediaries are also SOAP
default all nodes in the multi-hop path act in the
“next” role (http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope/role/next).
Replace “by default” with “Therefore”
4. In the SOAP processing model for intermediaries, any header that is
understood and processed must be removed from the SOAP message.
Remove “for intermediaries”
5. “If one wants the headers to be available to further
SOAP processors on the message path the headers have to be
“reinserted” in the SOAP message. When a SOAP intermediary does not
process a header it may relay this header to the next SOAP node, i.e. not
remove the header from the message.”
“As the routing function of the ebMS Intermediary requires
processing of SOAP headers these headers are not subject to “relay”
but to “reinsertion” [SOAP12]. As relaying does not apply to the
ebMS headers, the @relay=”true” attribute should not be set. The
ebMS routing function is then a “header reinsertion” case.
”NOTE: When the intermediary would reinsert header
attributes by removing them first and then add them again this might break
signatures. It is therefore strongly RECOMMENDED that intermediaries do not
alter in any way the SOAP header of routed messages, i.e. implementations must
consider the “reinsert” operation as a virtual extraction and
reinsertion of header blocs. An intermediary implementation SHOULD NOT rebuild
the SOAP header of routed messages by actually extracting then reinserting
Please reduce this to a statement of the required functionality
and do not describe how implementation should occur (IMO!) Put something like
“Header processing by an intermediary MUST not break digital
7. NOTE: set the @role of all headers to “next”, as
that does not seem to be a default in SOAP1.2 ?
The “@role” is a 1.2 attribute. What happens for SOAP
1.1? Why do we want all headers to have that role? Why is the wss header set
that way? We at most only want to set the role value to “next” for
the header containing metadata consulted by the intermediary. What about mustUnderstand?
For the ebMS header, we do not want a mere SOAP intermediary to throw a SOAP
fault because it does not grok ebMS. And we should architecturally allow mere
SOAP intermediaries. But by targeting “next” and requiring ebMS
header processing, we block things. We really need to understand which header
needs to be targeted and what the target value should be? We might well be
better off making up our own role value here.