IETF Logo Mail Archive

[apps-discuss] Question regarding RFC 7303

Stefan Cordes <stefan.cordes@canda.com> Mon, 11 July 2016 06:48 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=00009219de=stefan.cordes@canda.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C224D12B00D for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Jul 2016 23:48:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cWXXbQEIfUU7 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Jul 2016 23:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gatem.retail-sc.com (gatem.retail-sc.com [195.39.227.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BDE812B00A for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Jul 2016 23:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from m1.intdus.retail-sc.com ([10.0.243.143]) by gatem.retail-sc.com (Exim 4.80.1) with esmtp id 1bMV0n-000Dy3-5d; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 08:48:13 +0200
Received: from [10.16.2.190] (helo=intdusmhc1.intdus.retail-sc.com) by m1.intdus.retail-sc.com (Exim 4.80.1) with esmtp id 1bMV0n-0008YS-3n; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 08:48:13 +0200
Received: from dedusmsc2.intdus.retail-sc.com ([10.16.2.177]) by intdusmhc1.intdus.retail-sc.com (IBM Domino Release 9.0.1FP2 HF590) with ESMTP id 2016071108481292-5477 ; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 08:48:12 +0200
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: D07488E0:FAA41B38-C1257FED:0023B49B; type=4; flags=0; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: IBM Notes Release 9.0.1 October 14, 2013
Message-ID: <OFD07488E0.FAA41B38-ONC1257FED.0023B49B-C1257FED.00255F92@retail-sc.com>
From: Stefan Cordes <stefan.cordes@canda.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 08:48:12 +0200
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on dedusMSC2/server/retail-sc(Release 9.0.1FP2 HF590|December 11, 2014) at 07/11/2016 08:48:12 AM, Serialize complete at 07/11/2016 08:48:12 AM, Itemize by SMTP Server on intdusMHC1/server/retail-sc(Release 9.0.1FP2 HF590|December 11, 2014) at 07/11/2016 08:48:12 AM, Serialize by Router on intdusMHC1/server/retail-sc(Release 9.0.1FP2 HF590|December 11, 2014) at 07/11/2016 08:48:12 AM
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="=_related 00255F91C1257FED_="
X-m1-Scan-Signature: eca429d11edc04183437759b5c30da2b
X-RSC-MailScanner-Information: W1
X-RSC-MailScanner-ID: 1bMV0n-000Dy3-5d
X-RSC-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-RSC-MailScanner-From: stefan.cordes@canda.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/EdxeLPk1ODkKL4jQMJ6azAHtk9U>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 01:45:23 -0700
Cc: svacas <notifications@github.com>
Subject: [apps-discuss] Question regarding RFC 7303
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 06:51:27 -0000

Hi,
with https://github.com/mulesoft/apikit/pull/88#issuecomment-231617946
we came in some discussions about

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7303#section-3.2

where sometimes the "MIME Content-Type header" is ignored ( 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7303#section-8.9 )
 and sometimes the "XML encoding declaration" is ignored ( 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7303#section-8.8 )


Sounds to me a little bit unclear:

Transport does not touch characters in the body in case a "BOM" is 
available?
Transport converts all characters in the body to "MIME Content-Type" when 
receiving ?


Especially scenario 8.8 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7303#section-8.8 
seems not to work, as
base64 transport does not change anything in the xml-body and gives all 
the characters as they were sent into the DocumentBuilder.parse(...).


So in my point of view the "MIME Content-Type header" should be ignored in 
all cases for "application/xml".


Gruß,


Stefan Cordes
A-2.26



C&A Services GmbH & Co. OHG | Wanheimer Str. 70 | 40468 Düsseldorf
T +49 211 9872 2501 | stefan.cordes@canda.com

Visit us on www.c-a.com or www.facebook.com/ca

Please consider the environmental impact of needlessly printing this 
e-mail.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email