Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-camel-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 29057 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2009 15:24:19 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Dec 2009 15:24:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 42856 invoked by uid 500); 11 Dec 2009 15:24:19 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-camel-users-archive@camel.apache.org Received: (qmail 42829 invoked by uid 500); 11 Dec 2009 15:24:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@camel.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@camel.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@camel.apache.org Received: (qmail 42819 invoked by uid 99); 11 Dec 2009 15:24:19 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:24:19 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=HTTP_ESCAPED_HOST,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of email.wtam@gmail.com designates 209.85.211.182 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.211.182] (HELO mail-yw0-f182.google.com) (209.85.211.182) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:24:07 +0000 Received: by ywh12 with SMTP id 12so949364ywh.21 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:23:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=eHNnLXKU2ylkyaqv62TZrcwB3cLgfD3Btm4bBlBrhw0=; b=QMZuf6JPh/9LIA4gp90IBm0ZEGAQyb9nFUcIZme+hgE0ssahK2GNzUPgTeQGhMyBck AGi8dxkKxgLD6lhYMLxXCNWoBmTM/AunQY7HHpF2LnvbhTPQdOlli1lzxPi3xolaH7/M 6uwslhpT9z5vRYDhAY0jlk9Cj53MhyZLSXJ2w= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=J651+UAx02tvRJ+wJDXvkgYPb1mK7j7dRU83aXQhPNL4snQOUXUlfv6X4MTULHIXEU suctiVWQE/VWjpAgGLrcmJXYBSFnrq1Q2DIf/E1yKVkh0CLrE8FuB6k3wM3FEfJluCI8 qX/Oj15wle9RLBEtxBCSNfnYDuQ1fYw5pzGCM= Received: by 10.150.172.38 with SMTP id u38mr2540595ybe.328.1260545026191; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:23:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?172.30.26.137? ([131.239.31.200]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 21sm883533yxe.55.2009.12.11.07.23.43 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:23:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4B2263FC.8090509@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:23:40 -0500 From: William Tam User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: users@cxf.apache.org CC: users@camel.apache.org Subject: Re: MTOM producer - different content-id in XOP:Include and MIME part for the same attachment? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Thanks Max, for the investigating the issue and posting back the outcome. Max Ferrari wrote: > Apologies, > I skipped the part where it says > "converting %hh hex-escaped characters to their ASCII equivalents". > > Indeed this is a client issue (third party). > > > 2009/12/11 Max Ferrari : > >> From RFC2111 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2111.txt): >> >> A "cid" URL is converted to the corresponding Content-ID message >> header [MIME] by removing the "cid:" prefix, converting %hh hex- >> escaped characters to their ASCII equivalents and enclosing the >> remaining parts with an angle bracket pair, "<" and ">". For >> example, "mid:foo4%25foo1@bar.net" corresponds to >> >> Message-ID: >> >> What happens in CXF 2.2 also after the fix to issue CXF-596 is that >> the "cid" URL is converted to a completely unescaped Content-ID in the >> MIME header, so we have for example: >> >> cid:5726d366-df25-4945-9f3b-3003a2ae8a70-3@http%3A%2F%2Fcxf.apache.org%2F >> >> becomes >> >> Content-ID: <5726d366-df25-4945-9f3b-3003a2ae8a70-4@http://cxf.apache.org/> >> >> whereas as per the RFC example one would expect >> >> Content-ID: <5726d366-df25-4945-9f3b-3003a2ae8a70-4@http%3A%2F%2Fcxf.apache.org%2F> >> >> This breaks interoperability with other consumers (servers) at the moment. >> >> >> 2009/12/11 Max Ferrari : >> >>> I've just found this: >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-596?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel >>> >>> The fix applies to CXF 2.0, we're using CXF 2.2 and still experience >>> something very similar; possibly a Camel issue? We're using camel-cxf >>> 1.6.2. >>> Can't find anything on Camel's Jira, crossposting to camel-users. >>> >>> 2009/12/10 Max Ferrari : >>> >>>> Hi List, >>>> we are using in a camel route a cxf producer (client) enpoint with >>>> MTOM enabled. >>>> The consumer (server) at the moment is a 'black box' sitting in our >>>> customer's environment. >>>> >>>> The issue: >>>> following to an (apparently) valid request from our CXF client, the >>>> server replies with a SOAP fault: >>>> Sendercannot get >>>> mime part >>>> >>>> I've analyzed the http conversation and I observe that: >>>> >>>> - In the SOAP part of the request the attachments are included as: >>>> >>> href="cid:5726d366-df25-4945-9f3b-3003a2ae8a70-3@http%3A%2F%2Fcxf.apache.org%2F"/> >>>> >>>> (please notice escaped cxf.apache.org URI in the cid) >>>> >>>> - instead, the actual Content-Id in the multipart POST part is unescaped: >>>> Content-ID: <5726d366-df25-4945-9f3b-3003a2ae8a70-4@http://cxf.apache.org/> >>>> >>>> The point is that, if I replay using Fiddler the same request, by >>>> replacing the escaped part of the cid with an unescaped one, so that >>>> XOP and MIME content IDs are exactly the same: >>>> >>> href="cid:5726d366-df25-4945-9f3b-3003a2ae8a70-3@http://cxf.apache.org/"/> >>>> >>>> then the server replies with a 200 OK. >>>> >>>> Now, I suspect that the escaped cid in the SOAP part is perfectly >>>> legal and that it's the consumer implementation's fault not matching >>>> it correctly to the MIME part. >>>> However I'd need some clear normative references to discuss this to >>>> the customer. >>>> >>>> Actually at http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-xop10-20040826/#mime_xop_packages >>>> I read: >>>> Part metadata is reflected in MIME header fields. Specifically, the >>>> URI used in the value of an href attribute information item on a >>>> xop:Include element information item contains a URI that uses the >>>> 'cid:' scheme (see [RFC 2392]), so the corresponding MIME part MUST >>>> have a Content-ID header field (see [RFC 2387] with a corresponding >>>> field-value. >>>> >>>> Some comments from CXF developers would be greatly appreciated. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Max >>>> >>>> >> >> -- >> Max >> >> > > > >