W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2002

RE: Soap Message Canonicalization (SM-C14N)

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:34:23 -0800
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D067C8367@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <rsalz@zolera.com>, "xml-dist-app" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

>The current spec does require header blocks to be forwarded in
>the same 
>order they were received: "Such relayed SOAP messages MUST contain all 
>SOAP header blocks and the SOAP body from the original SOAP 
>message, in 
>the original order, except that SOAP header blocks targeted at 
>the SOAP 
>intermediary MUST be removed (such SOAP blocks are removed 
>regardless of 
>whether they were processed or ignored)." Unless we change this rule I 
>am not convinced that we need sorting in the C14N algorithm.

I think it was me who brought up the concern of oversimplifying the need
for preserving order. The current requirement is very strict and I think
will lead to problems in handling expectations of what intermediaries
can do. What about saying something like the following... I think it is
a compromise proposal that should clarify what intermediaries are
allowed to do with respect to ordering:

* A SOAP intermediary must not change the order of header blocks NOT
targeted at it.

* There are no ordering constraints for "re-inserted" header blocks.
That is, if one uses "repeated header blocks" then an intermediary is
NOT required to re-insert them in the same order as they were received
nor necessarily in the same location in the SOAP message.

* There are no restrictions on where a SOAP intermediary can insert
additional header blocks. That is, an intermediary can insert blocks
between any other blocks in a SOAP header.

Hope this makes sense!

Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2002 14:35:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:18 UTC