[ebxml-msg] SOAP with Attachments Interop testing

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:]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 5:51 
PM
To: 
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:] 
Sent: Monday, May 13, 
2002 2:38 
PM
To: 

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:] 
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 12:18 
PM
To: 

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:] 
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 2:19 
PM
To: 

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:


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:


 

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:]
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 11:03 
  AM
To: 
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:]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 5:51 
  PM
To: 
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:] 
Sent: Monday, May 13, 
  2002 2:38 
  PM
To: 
  
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:] 
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 12:18 
  PM
To: 
  
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:] 
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 2:19 
  PM
To: 
  
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:


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:


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:


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:


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