Network Working Group E. O'Tuathail
Request for Comments: 4227 Clipcode.com
Obsoletes: 3288 M. Rose
Category: Standards Track Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.
January 2006
Using the Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP)
in Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP)
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This memo specifies a Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) binding to
the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP) core. A SOAP binding
describes how SOAP messages are transmitted in the network.
The SOAP is an XML-based (eXtensible Markup Language) messaging
protocol used to implement a wide variety of distributed messaging
models. It defines a message format and describes a variety of
message patterns, including, but not limited to, Remote Procedure
Calling (RPC), asynchronous event notification, unacknowledged
messages, and forwarding via SOAP intermediaries.
O'Tuathail & Rose Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 4227 Using SOAP in BEEP January 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................3
2. BEEP Profile Identification .....................................3
2.1. Profile Initialization .....................................4
3. SOAP Message Packages ...........................................6
4. SOAP Message Patterns ...........................................8
4.1. One-Way Message ............................................8
4.2. Request-Response Exchange ..................................8
4.3. Request/N-Responses Exchange ...............................8
4.4. Error Handling .............................................9
5. SOAP Protocol Binding Framework Conformance .....................9
5.1. Binding Name ...............................................9
5.2. Base URI ...................................................9
5.3. Supported SOAP Message Exchange Patterns ...................9
5.4. Supported Features .........................................9
5.5. MEP Operation .............................................10
5.5.1. Behavior of Requesting SOAP Node ...................10
5.5.1.1. Init ......................................10
5.5.1.2. Requesting ................................10
5.5.1.3. Sending+Receiving .........................10
5.5.1.4. Success and Fail ..........................11
5.5.2. Behavior of Responding SOAP Node ...................11
5.5.2.1. Init ......................................11
5.5.2.2. Receiving .................................11
5.5.2.3. Receiving+Sending .........................11
5.5.2.4. Success and Fail ..........................11
6. URL Schemes ....................................................11
6.1. The soap.beep URL Scheme ..................................11
6.1.1. Resolving IP/TCP Address Information ...............12
6.2. The soap.beeps URL Scheme .................................13
7. Registration Templates .........................................13
7.1. SOAP Profile Feature Registration Template ................13
8. Initial Registrations ..........................................13
8.1. Registration: The SOAP Profile ............................13
8.2. Registration: The soap.beep URL Scheme ....................14
8.3. Registration: The soap.beeps URL Scheme ...................14
8.4. Registration: The System (Well-Known) TCP Port
Number for SOAP ...........................................15
9. Security Considerations ........................................15
10. IANA Considerations ...........................................16
11. Changes from RFC 3288 .........................................16
12. Acknowledgements ..............................................17
13. References ....................................................17
13.1. Normative References .....................................17
13.2. Informative References ...................................18
A. Appendix - SOAP with Attachments (Informative) .................19
O'Tuathail & Rose Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 4227 Using SOAP in BEEP January 2006
1. Introduction
This memo specifies how SOAP envelopes [15] are transmitted using a
BEEP profile [1]. Conforming implementations MUST support SOAP
version 1.2 [15] and MAY support other versions, such as SOAP version
1.1 [17]. This memo specifies how SOAP envelopes [15] are
transmitted using a BEEP profile [1]. Unlike its predecessor,
RFC3288 [16], this memo does not mandate the use of SOAP version 1.1.
Throughout this memo, the term "envelope" refers to the top-level
element exchanged by SOAP senders and receivers. For example, when
referring to SOAP version 1.2, the term "envelope" refers to the
"Envelope" element defined in Section 5.1 of [2]. Furthermore, the
terms "peer", "client", "server", "one-to-one", and "one-to-many" are
used in the context of BEEP. In particular, Sections 2.1 and 2.1.1
of [1] discuss BEEP roles and exchange styles.
2. BEEP Profile Identification
The BEEP profile for SOAP is identified as
http://iana.org/beep/soap/VERSION
in the BEEP "profile" element during channel creation. where
"VERSION" refers to the numeric version of the SOAP specification.
For example,
http://iana.org/beep/soap/1.2
refers to version 1.2.
Note that RFC 3288 [16] used
http://iana.org/beep/soap
for the purposes of profile identification for SOAP version 1.1
envelopes [17]. If an implementation of this memo chooses to
implement SOAP version 1.1, then it should support both this Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI) for profile identification as well as
"http://iana.org/beep/soap/1.1".
In BEEP, when the first channel is successfully created, the
"serverName" attribute in the "start" element identifies the "virtual
host" associated with the peer acting in the server role, e.g.,
O'Tuathail & Rose Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 4227 Using SOAP in BEEP January 2006
The "serverName" attribute is analogous to HTTP's "Host" request-
header field (cf. Section 14.23 of [4]).
There are two states in the BEEP profile for SOAP, "boot" and
"ready":
o In the "boot" state, the peer requesting the creation of the
channel sends a "bootmsg" (either during channel initialization or
in a "MSG" message).
* If the other peer sends a "bootrpy" (either during channel
initialization or in an "RPY" message), then the "ready" state
is entered
* Otherwise, the other peer sends an "error" (either during
channel initialization or in an "ERR" message), then no state
change occurs.
o In the "ready" state, either peer begins a SOAP message pattern by
sending a "MSG" message containing an envelope. The other peer
completes the message pattern either by
* sending back an "RPY" message containing an envelope or
* sending back zero or more "ANS" messages, each containing an
envelope, followed by a "NUL" message.
Regardless, no state change occurs.
2.1. Profile Initialization
The boot message is used for two purposes:
resource identification: each channel bound to the BEEP profile
for SOAP provides access to a single resource (a network data
object or service).
feature negotiation: if new features of SOAP (such as compression)
emerge, their use can be negotiated.
O'Tuathail & Rose Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 4227 Using SOAP in BEEP January 2006
The DTD syntax for the boot message and its response are:
The boot message contains a mandatory and an optional attribute:
o the "resource" attribute, which is analogous to HTTP's "abs_path"
Request-URI parameter (cf. Section 5.1.2 of [4]) and
o the "features" attribute, which, if present, contains one or more
feature tokens, each indicating an optional feature of the BEEP
profile for SOAP that is being requested for possible use over the
channel.
Section 7.1 defines a registration template for optional features.
If the peer acting in the server role recognizes the requested
resource, it replies with the boot response that contains one
optional attribute:
o The "features" attribute, if present, contains a subset of the
feature tokens in the boot message, indicating which features may
be used over the channel. (If not present or empty, then no
features may be used.)
Otherwise, if the boot message is improperly formed, or if the
requested resource is not recognized, the peer acting in the server
role replies with an error message (cf. Section 7.1 of [1]).
Typically, the boot message and its response are exchanged during
channel initialization (cf. Section 2.3.1.2 of [1]).
For example, here the boot message and its response are exchanged
during channel initialization:
C:
C:
C: ]]>
C:
C:
O'Tuathail & Rose Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 4227 Using SOAP in BEEP January 2006
S:
S: ]]>
S:
The channel bound to the BEEP profile for SOAP is now in the "ready"
state.
Alternatively, here is an example in which the boot exchange is
unsuccessful:
C:
C:
C: ]]>
C:
C:
S:
S: resource not
S: supported]]>
S:
Although the channel was created successfully, it remains in the
"boot" state.
3. SOAP Message Packages
The BEEP profile for SOAP transmits envelopes encoded as UTF-8 and
SHOULD use the media type "application/soap+xml" [5], e.g.,
MSG 1 1 . 0 284
Content-Type: application/soap+xml
DIS
END
To provide compatibility with RFC 3288 [16], it MAY use the media
type "application/xml" [6].
O'Tuathail & Rose Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 4227 Using SOAP in BEEP January 2006
In addition, an implementation of the BEEP profile for SOAP MAY
support transmission of envelopes using the MTOM [7] / XOP [8]
packaging technique, e.g.,
MSG 1 2 . 283 1436
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Multipart/Related;boundary=MIME_boundary;
type="application/xop+xml";
start="";
startinfo="application/soap+xml; action=
Content-Description: A SOAP message with my pic and sig in it
--MIME_boundary
Content-Type: application/xop+xml;
charset=UTF-8;
type="application/soap+xml; action=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-ID:
--MIME_boundary
Content-Type: image/png
Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
Content-ID:
// binary octets for png
--MIME_boundary
Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
Content-ID:
O'Tuathail & Rose Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 4227 Using SOAP in BEEP January 2006
// binary octets for signature
--MIME_boundary--
END
Consult Section 4.1 of XOP [8] for guidance on MIME Multipart/Related
usage. Because BEEP provides an 8-bit-wide path, a "transformative"
Content-Transfer-Encoding (e.g., "base64" or "quoted-printable")
should not be used. Note that MIME [9] requires that the value of
the "Content-ID" header be globally unique. As stated in Section 4
of XOP [8], XOP may be used with diverse packaging mechanisms. When
an implementation of BEEP in SOAP does support MTOM/XOP, it SHOULD
support the MIME Multipart/Related XOP Package format, and MAY
support others. Additional formats could, in the future, include XOP
package formats specific to BEEP (e.g., sending the attachments on a
different channel to the SOAP channel, which would avoid searching
for the MIME boundary tags and allows lazy delivery of attachments,
delivering them only when really needed.)
4. SOAP Message Patterns
4.1. One-Way Message
A one-way message involves sending a message without any response
being returned.
The BEEP profile for SOAP achieves this using a one-to-many exchange,
in which the client sends a "MSG" message containing an envelope, and
the server immediately sends back a "NUL" message, before processing
the contents of the envelope.
4.2. Request-Response Exchange
A request/response exchange involves sending a request, which results
in a response being returned.
The BEEP profile for SOAP achieves this using a one-to-one exchange,
in which the client sends a "MSG" message containing an envelope, and
the server sends back a "RPY" message containing an envelope.
4.3. Request/N-Responses Exchange
A request/N-responses exchange involves sending a request, which
results in zero or more responses being returned.
O'Tuathail & Rose Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 4227 Using SOAP in BEEP January 2006
The BEEP profile for SOAP achieves this using a one-to-many exchange,
in which the client sends a "MSG" message containing an envelope, and
the server sends back zero or more "ANS" messages, each containing an
envelope, followed by a "NUL" message.
4.4. Error Handling
The BEEP profile for SOAP does not use the "ERR" message for SOAP
faults. When performing one-to-one exchanges, whatever SOAP response
(including SOAP faults) generated by the server is always returned in
the "RPY" message. When performing one-to-many exchanges, whatever
SOAP response (including SOAP faults) generated by the server is
always returned in the "ANS" messages.
If there is an error with the BEEP message unrelated to the SOAP
envelope (e.g., poorly formed MIME message or MIME Content-Type not
supported), then the server responds with an ERR message (see Section
7.1 of [1]) with an appropriate reply code (e.g., see Section 8 of
[1]).
5. SOAP Protocol Binding Framework Conformance
5.1. Binding Name
This binding is identified by a URI that is exactly the same as the
profile URI for BEEP in SOAP (see Section 2).
5.2. Base URI
The Base URI for the SOAP envelope is the URI of the resource
identified in the bootmsg.
5.3. Supported SOAP Message Exchange Patterns
An implementation of this binding MUST support the following SOAP
Message Exchange Pattern (MEP):
o "http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/request-response/" (see
Section 6.2 of [3])
5.4. Supported Features
An implementation of this binding MAY support the following feature:
"http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/features/action/" (see Section 6.5 of
[3].)
O'Tuathail & Rose Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 4227 Using SOAP in BEEP January 2006
5.5. MEP Operation
For binding instances conforming to this specification:
o A SOAP node instantiated at the BEEP peer that initiates the
message exchange may assume the role (i.e., the property http://
www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/bindingFramework/ExchangeContext/Role ) of
"RequestingSOAPNode".
o A SOAP node instantiated at the other BEEP peer may assume the
role (i.e., the property http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/
bindingFramework/ExchangeContext/Role) of "RespondingSOAPNode".
5.5.1. Behavior of Requesting SOAP Node
The overall flow of the behavior of a requesting SOAP node follows a
state machine description consistent with Section 6.2 of [3].
In order to avoid deadlock during streaming (see Section 6.2.3 of
[3]), the requesting SOAP node MUST be able to process incoming SOAP
response information while the SOAP request is still being
transmitted.
5.5.1.1. Init
In the "Init" state, a BEEP message is formulated according to
Section 3, transmission of the message begins, and then the state
changes to "Requesting".
5.5.1.2. Requesting
In the "Requesting" state, more of the request message is transmitted
and the arrival of the response is awaited. When the beginning of
the response message is received, if it is a BEEP ERR message, then
the state transitions to "Fail"; otherwise, the state transitions to
"Sending+Receiving".
5.5.1.3. Sending+Receiving
In the "Sending+Receiving" state, the transmission of the request
message and receiving of the response message are completed. The
response message is assumed to contain a SOAP envelope serialized
according to the rules for carrying SOAP messages in the media type
given in the Content-Type header field. Once the receipt of the
response is completed, the state transitions to "Success".
O'Tuathail & Rose Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 4227 Using SOAP in BEEP January 2006
5.5.1.4. Success and Fail
"Success" and "Fail" are the terminal states for the state machine.
5.5.2. Behavior of Responding SOAP Node
The overall flow of the behavior of a responding SOAP node follows a
state machine description consistent with Section 6.2 of [3]
5.5.2.1. Init
In the "Init" state, the binding awaits the start of the inbound
request. In this state, it may only generate ERR messages (in
accordance with Section 4.4).
5.5.2.2. Receiving
The binding begins to receive the request message and prepares the
start of the response, in accordance with Section 3. When ready to
transmit the response, the state transitions to "Receiving+Sending".
5.5.2.3. Receiving+Sending
The binding completes the receiving of the request and sending of the
response and then transitions to "Success" state.
5.5.2.4. Success and Fail
"Success" and "Fail" are the terminal states that indicate completion
of the message exchange.
6. URL Schemes
This memo defines two URL schemes, "soap.beep" and "soap.beeps",
which identify the use of SOAP over BEEP over TCP. Note that, at
present, a "generic" URL scheme for SOAP is not defined.
6.1. The soap.beep URL Scheme
The "soap.beep" URL scheme uses the "generic URI" syntax defined in
Section 3 of [10], specifically:
o the value "soap.beep" is used for the scheme component and
o the server-based naming authority defined in Section 3.2.2 of [10]
is used for the authority component.
O'Tuathail & Rose Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 4227 Using SOAP in BEEP January 2006
o the path component maps to the "resource" component of the boot
message sent during profile initialization (if absent, it defaults
to "/").
The values of both the scheme and authority components are case-
insensitive.
For example, the URL
soap.beep://stockquoteserver.example.com/StockQuote
might result in the example shown in Section 2.1.
6.1.1. Resolving IP/TCP Address Information
The "soap.beep" URL scheme indicates the use of the BEEP profile for
SOAP running over TCP/IP.
If the authority component contains a domain name and a port number,
e.g.,
soap.beep://stockquoteserver.example.com:1026
then the DNS is queried for the A Resource Records corresponding to
the domain name, and the port number is used directly.
If the authority component contains a domain name and no port number,
e.g.,
soap.beep://stockquoteserver.example.com
the Service Record algorithm [11] is used with a service parameter of
"soap-beep" and a protocol parameter of "tcp" to determine the IP/TCP
addressing information. If no appropriate SRV RRs are found (e.g.,
for "_soap-beep._tcp.stockquoteserver.example.com"), then the DNS is
queried for the A RRs corresponding to the domain name and the port
number used is assigned by the IANA for the registration in Section
8.4.
If the authority component contains an IP address, e.g.,
soap.beep://192.0.2.0:1026
then the DNS is not queried, and the IP address is used directly. If
a port number is present, it is used directly; otherwise, the port
number used is assigned by the IANA for the registration in Section
8.4.
O'Tuathail & Rose Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 4227 Using SOAP in BEEP January 2006
While the use of literal IPv6 addresses in URLs is discouraged, if a
literal IPv6 address is used in a "soap.beep" URL, it must conform to
the syntax specified in [12].
6.2. The soap.beeps URL Scheme
The "soap.beeps" URL scheme is identical, in all ways, to the
"soap.beep" URL scheme specified in Section 6.1, with the exception
that prior to starting the BEEP profile for SOAP, the BEEP session
must be tuned for privacy. In particular, note that both URL schemes
use the identical algorithms and parameters for address resolution as
specified in Section 6.1.1 (e.g., the same service name for SRV
lookups, the same port number for TCP, and so on).
There are two ways to perform privacy tuning on a BEEP session,
either
o a transport security profile may be successfully started or
o a user authentication profile that supports transport security may
be successfully started.
Regardless, upon completion of the negotiation process, a tuning
reset occurs in which both BEEP peers issue a new greeting. Consult
Section 3 of [1] for an example of how a BEEP peer may choose to
issue different greetings based on whether privacy is in use.
7. Registration Templates
7.1. SOAP Profile Feature Registration Template
When a feature for the BEEP profile for SOAP is registered, the
following information is supplied:
Feature Identification: specify a string that identifies this
feature. Unless the feature is registered with the IANA, the
feature's identification must start with "x-".
Feature Semantics: specify the semantics of the feature.
Contact Information: specify the electronic contact information for
the author of the feature.
8. Initial Registrations
8.1. Registration: The SOAP Profile
Profile Identification: http://iana.org/beep/soap/VERSION
O'Tuathail & Rose Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 4227 Using SOAP in BEEP January 2006
Messages exchanged during Channel Creation: bootmsg, bootrpy
Messages starting one-to-one exchanges: bootmsg, a SOAP "envelope"
Messages in positive replies: bootrpy, a SOAP "envelope"
Messages in negative replies: error
Messages in one-to-many exchanges: a SOAP "envelope"
Message Syntax: a SOAP envelope
Message Semantics: corresponds to the relevant SOAP specification,
e.g., for SOAP version 1.2, cf. [2].
Contact Information: Eamon O'Tuathail ,
Marshall Rose
8.2. Registration: The soap.beep URL Scheme
URL scheme name: soap.beep
URL scheme syntax: cf. Section 6.1
Character encoding considerations: cf. the "generic URI" syntax
defined in Section 3 of [10]
Intended usage: identifies a SOAP resource made available using the
BEEP profile for SOAP
Applications using this scheme: cf. "Intended usage", above
Interoperability considerations: n/a
Security Considerations: cf. Section 9
Relevant Publications: cf. [2] for SOAP version 1.2
Contact Information: Eamon O'Tuathail ,
Marshall Rose
Author/Change controller: the IESG
8.3. Registration: The soap.beeps URL Scheme
URL scheme name: soap.beeps
URL scheme syntax: cf. Section 6.2
O'Tuathail & Rose Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 4227 Using SOAP in BEEP January 2006
Character encoding considerations: cf. the "generic URI" syntax
defined in Section 3 of [10]
Intended usage: identifies a SOAP resource made available using the
BEEP profile for SOAP after the BEEP session has been tuned for
privacy
Applications using this scheme: cf. "Intended usage", above
Interoperability considerations: n/a
Security Considerations: cf. Section 9
Relevant Publications: cf. [2] for SOAP version 1.2
Contact Information: Eamon O'Tuathail ,
Marshall Rose
Author/Change controller: the IESG
8.4. Registration: The System (Well-Known) TCP Port Number for SOAP
over BEEP
Protocol Number: TCP
Message Formats, Types, Opcodes, and Sequences: cf. Section 2.1
Functions: cf. [2] for SOAP version 1.2
Use of Broadcast/Multicast: none
Proposed Name: SOAP over BEEP
Short name: soap-beep
Contact Information: Eamon O'Tuathail ,
Marshall Rose
9. Security Considerations
Although service provisioning is a policy matter, at a minimum, all
implementations MUST provide the following tuning profiles:
for authentication: http://iana.org/beep/SASL/DIGEST-MD5
for confidentiality: http://iana.org/beep/TLS (using the
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_EDE_CBC_SHA cipher)
O'Tuathail & Rose Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 4227 Using SOAP in BEEP January 2006
for both: http://iana.org/beep/TLS (using the
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_EDE_CBC_SHA cipher supporting client-side
certificates)
Furthermore, implementations may choose to offer MIME-based security
services providing message integrity and confidentiality, such as
OpenPGP [13] or S/MIME [14].
Regardless, consult [1]'s Section 9 for a discussion of BEEP-specific
security issues.
10. IANA Considerations
Previously, the IANA registered "http://iana.org/beep/soap" for use
with RFC 3288 [16]. This memo requires that the IANA register a
URI-prefix of
http://iana.org/beep/soap/VERSION
to correspond to the family of profiles defined Section 8.1.
The IANA has registered "soap.beep" and "soap.beeps" as URL schemes,
as specified in Section 8.2 and Section 8.3, respectively.
The IANA has also registered "SOAP over BEEP" as a TCP port number,
as specified in Section 8.4.
The IANA now broadens these three registries to support the family of
BEEP profiles defined by this URI prefix.
Finally, the IANA maintains a list of SOAP profile features, cf.
Section 7.1. The IESG is responsible for assigning a designated
expert to review the specification prior to the IANA making the
assignment. Prior to contacting the IESG, developers of SOAP profile
features must use the mailing list beepwg@lists.beepcore.org to
solicit commentary.
11. Changes from RFC 3288
This memo differs from RFC 3288 [16] in one substantive way: a URL
prefix is defined to support a family of BEEP profiles corresponding
to different versions of SOAP. Similarly, the IANA registrations in
Section 8.1, Section 8.3, and Section 8.4 are updated to reflect this
broadening.
Support for W3C MTOM/XOP packaging has been added.
O'Tuathail & Rose Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 4227 Using SOAP in BEEP January 2006
A new section was added to discuss the distributed state machine of
the Request-Response MEP.
In non-substantive ways, a small number of typographical errors were
corrected.
12. Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of: Christopher
Ferris, Huston Franklin, Alexey Melnikov, Bill Mills, and Roy T.
Fielding.
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[1] Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core", RFC
3080, March 2001.
[2] Nielsen, H., Mendelsohn, N., Gudgin, M., Hadley, M., and J.
Moreau, "SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework", W3C REC
REC-soap12-part1-20030624, June 2003.
[3] Nielsen, H., Hadley, M., Moreau, J., Mendelsohn, N., and M.
Gudgin, "SOAP Version 1.2 Part 2: Adjuncts", W3C REC REC-
soap12-part2-20030624, June 2003.
[4] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L.,
Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol --
HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
[5] Baker, M. and M. Nottingham, "The "application/soap+xml" media
type", RFC 3902, September 2004.
[6] Murata, M., St. Laurent, S., and D. Kohn, "XML Media Types",
RFC 3023, January 2001.
[7] Nottingham, M., Mendelsohn, N., Gudgin, M., and H. Ruellan,
"SOAP Message Transmission Optimization Mechanism", W3C REC
REC-soap12-mtom-20050125, January 2005.
[8] Nottingham, M., Mendelsohn, N., Gudgin, M., and H. Ruellan,
"XML-binary Optimized Packaging", W3C REC REC-xop10-20050125,
January 2005.
[9] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies",
RFC 2045, November 1996.
O'Tuathail & Rose Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 4227 Using SOAP in BEEP January 2006
[10] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986,
January 2005.
[11] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
February 2000.
[12] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986,
January 2005.
[13] Elkins, M., Del Torto, D., Levien, R., and T. Roessler, "MIME
Security with OpenPGP", RFC 3156, August 2001.
[14] Ramsdell, B., "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
(S/MIME) Version 3.1 Message Specification", RFC 3851, July
2004.
13.2. Informative References
[15] Mitra, N., "SOAP Version 1.2 Part 0: Primer", W3C REC REC-
soap12-part0-20030624, June 2003.
[16] O'Tuathail, E. and M. Rose, "Using the Simple Object Access
Protocol (SOAP) in Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP)",
RFC 3288, June 2002.
[17] Box, D., Ehnebuske, D., Kakivaya, G., Layman, A., Mendelsohn,
N., Nielsen, H., Thatte, S., and D. Winer, "Simple Object
Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1", W3C NOTE NOTE-SOAP-20000508, May
2000.
[18] Levinson, E., "The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type", RFC
2387, August 1998.
[19] Barton, J., Thatte, S., and H. Nielsen, "SOAP Messages with
Attachments", W3C NOTE NOTE-SOAP-attachments-20001211, December
2000.
[20] Levinson, E., "Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource
Locators", RFC 2392, August 1998.
[21] Palme, J., Hopmann, A., and N. Shelness, "MIME Encapsulation of
Aggregate Documents, such as HTML (MHTML)", RFC 2557, March
1999.
O'Tuathail & Rose Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 4227 Using SOAP in BEEP January 2006
Appendix A. SOAP with Attachments (Informative)
To provide compatibility with RFC3288 [16], a BEEP profile for SOAP
MAY allow envelopes to be transmitted as the root part of a
"multipart/related" [18] content, and with subordinate parts
referenced using the rules of Section 3 of [19] (i.e., using either
the "Content-ID:" [20] or "Content-Location:" [21] headers), e.g.,
MSG 1 2 . 278 657
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="MIME_boundary";
type=application/xml;
start=""
--MIME_boundary
Content-Type: application/xml
Content-ID:
..
--MIME_boundary
Content-Type: image/tiff
Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
Content-ID:
...binary TIFF image...
--MIME_boundary--
END
Consistent with Section 2 of [19], it is strongly recommended that
the multipart contain a "start" parameter, and that the root part
contain a "Content-ID:" header. However, because BEEP provides an
8bit-wide path, a "transformative" Content-Transfer-Encoding (e.g.,
"base64" or "quoted-printable") should not be used. Further note
that MIME [9] requires that the value of the "Content-ID" header be
globally unique.
O'Tuathail & Rose Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 4227 Using SOAP in BEEP January 2006
Authors' Addresses
Eamon O'Tuathail
Clipcode.com
24 Thomastown Road
Dun Laoghaire
Dublin
IE
Phone: +353 1 2350 424
EMail: eamon.otuathail@clipcode.com
URI: http://www.clipcode.com/
Marshall T. Rose
Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.
POB 255268
Sacramento, CA 95865-5268
US
Phone: +1 916 483 8878
EMail: mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us
O'Tuathail & Rose Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 4227 Using SOAP in BEEP January 2006
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
O'Tuathail & Rose Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC, FYI, BCP