You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@cxf.apache.org by Thomas Papke <th...@icw.de> on 2018/09/25 15:20:08 UTC
Clarification on Content-ID HTTP Header for XOP attachments
Hello all,
I think some help regarding the content-ID in the HTTP header in context of XOP / mtom attachments.
As part of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1900 somethings was fixed that the Content-ID is NOT url encoded.
As part of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-2669 a small improvement was implemented, but the issue description still define that the Content-ID and the Message-ID in the HTTP headers are NOT url encoded
The "bugfix" https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-7317 in one of the last bugfix releases (3.2.5) seems to rollback the behavior of CXF-1900 (at least from my understanding).
Now the question: What is correct and why? From my understanding the fix with CXF-7317 was wrong and violates rfc2392.
But maybe someone else could clarify this why CXF-7317 is still ok.
Thank you,
Kind regards,
Thomas
InterComponentWare AG:
Vorst?nde: Dr. Ralf Brandner, Hans Gerwing, Nils Effertz
Aufsichtsratsvors.: Prof. Dr. Christof Hettich
Unternehmenssitz: 69190 Walldorf, Altrottstra?e 31
AG Mannheim HRB 351761 / USt.-IdNr.: DE 198388516
Re: Clarification on Content-ID HTTP Header for XOP attachments
Posted by Joscha <jo...@outlook.de>.
Hi Dennis and Thomas,
I'm having the same problem. I get the exception on receivers side
/No attachment found for content ID
'91cc49c9-18ff-4542-9347-1f2ee0478589-1@urn:ihe:iti:xds-b:2007'/
I figured out, that the received message contains the following attachement
id
/91cc49c9-18ff-4542-9347-1f2ee0478589-1@urn%3Aihe%3Aiti%3Axds-b%3A2007/
I think there is a problem with der percent encoding.
Thanks a lot
Joscha
--
Sent from: http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/cxf-user-f547216.html
Re: Clarification on Content-ID HTTP Header for XOP attachments
Posted by Colm O hEigeartaigh <co...@apache.org>.
Nevermind, I see it's already backmerged.
Colm.
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 3:44 PM Colm O hEigeartaigh <co...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi Dennis,
>
> I want to call a vote on 3.1.x today if possible - can you backmerge this
> fix?
>
> Colm.
>
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:39 PM Dennis Kieselhorst <de...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> > I think the problem is the example in the specification, which do not
>> comply
>> > to this definition. But this is already covered since year 2000 *by a
>> errata
>> > for RFC-2392*
>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc2392
>> >
>> > This errata contain the correct example that comply with the text:
>> >
>> >
>> > I think the definition make sense. The value behind "cid:" must be URI
>> > encoded, since in must be a valid URI. The HTTP header Content-ID has
>> not
>> > limitation to be encoded.
>> >
>> > Do you agree with my interpretation?
>> > If yes, than we shall create an issue on CXF side and request a
>> rollback the
>> > changes done with CXF-7317
>>
>> I fully agree, sorry for that, I had just taken a look at the example and
>> then merged the PR. I just reverted the changes and put a note on
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-7317 and
>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBWS-4064. Will merge it to 3.1.x and
>> 3.2.x branch later today...
>>
>> Regards
>> Dennis
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Colm O hEigeartaigh
>
> Talend Community Coder
> http://coders.talend.com
>
--
Colm O hEigeartaigh
Talend Community Coder
http://coders.talend.com
Re: Clarification on Content-ID HTTP Header for XOP attachments
Posted by Colm O hEigeartaigh <co...@apache.org>.
Hi Dennis,
I want to call a vote on 3.1.x today if possible - can you backmerge this
fix?
Colm.
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:39 PM Dennis Kieselhorst <de...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I think the problem is the example in the specification, which do not
> comply
> > to this definition. But this is already covered since year 2000 *by a
> errata
> > for RFC-2392*
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc2392
> >
> > This errata contain the correct example that comply with the text:
> >
> >
> > I think the definition make sense. The value behind "cid:" must be URI
> > encoded, since in must be a valid URI. The HTTP header Content-ID has not
> > limitation to be encoded.
> >
> > Do you agree with my interpretation?
> > If yes, than we shall create an issue on CXF side and request a rollback
> the
> > changes done with CXF-7317
>
> I fully agree, sorry for that, I had just taken a look at the example and
> then merged the PR. I just reverted the changes and put a note on
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-7317 and
> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBWS-4064. Will merge it to 3.1.x and
> 3.2.x branch later today...
>
> Regards
> Dennis
>
>
>
--
Colm O hEigeartaigh
Talend Community Coder
http://coders.talend.com
Re: Clarification on Content-ID HTTP Header for XOP attachments
Posted by Thopap <th...@icw.de>.
Hello Dennis,
i have created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-7857 to better
track this is in the release notes. Could you remove the fix-version 3.2.7
and 3.1.17 from CXF-7317?
Cheers,
Thomas
--
Sent from: http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/cxf-user-f547216.html
Re: Clarification on Content-ID HTTP Header for XOP attachments
Posted by Dennis Kieselhorst <de...@apache.org>.
Hi Thomas!
> Just a small formal thing: Does it make sense to have a explicit issue for
> this rollback to make this more transparent in the release notes of CXF
> 3.2.7 that this issue was rolled back?
Not a bad idea. If you volunteer to create one, we can also do it that way.
Cheers
Dennis
Re: Clarification on Content-ID HTTP Header for XOP attachments
Posted by Thopap <th...@icw.de>.
Hello Dennis,
thank you for this.
Do you know detail about the release date of CXF 3.2.7?
Just a small formal thing: Does it make sense to have a explicit issue for
this rollback to make this more transparent in the release notes of CXF
3.2.7 that this issue was rolled back?
Thank you,
Kind regards,
Thomas
--
Sent from: http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/cxf-user-f547216.html
Re: Clarification on Content-ID HTTP Header for XOP attachments
Posted by Dennis Kieselhorst <de...@apache.org>.
> I think the problem is the example in the specification, which do not comply
> to this definition. But this is already covered since year 2000 *by a errata
> for RFC-2392*
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc2392
>
> This errata contain the correct example that comply with the text:
>
>
> I think the definition make sense. The value behind "cid:" must be URI
> encoded, since in must be a valid URI. The HTTP header Content-ID has not
> limitation to be encoded.
>
> Do you agree with my interpretation?
> If yes, than we shall create an issue on CXF side and request a rollback the
> changes done with CXF-7317
I fully agree, sorry for that, I had just taken a look at the example and then merged the PR. I just reverted the changes and put a note on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-7317 and https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBWS-4064. Will merge it to 3.1.x and 3.2.x branch later today...
Regards
Dennis
Re: Clarification on Content-ID HTTP Header for XOP attachments
Posted by Thopap <th...@icw.de>.
Hello Dennis,
i will try to explain my interpretation.
The important sentence in RFC-2392 is:
A "cid" URL is converted to the corresponding Content-ID message header
[MIME] by removing the "cid:" prefix, converting the % encoded character to
their equivalent US-ASCII characters"
And especially the last part "converting the % encoded character to their
equivalent US-ASCII characters" explictly define a decode, which now no
longer exist.
I think the problem is the example in the specification, which do not comply
to this definition. But this is already covered since year 2000 *by a errata
for RFC-2392*
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc2392
This errata contain the correct example that comply with the text:
I think the definition make sense. The value behind "cid:" must be URI
encoded, since in must be a valid URI. The HTTP header Content-ID has not
limitation to be encoded.
Do you agree with my interpretation?
If yes, than we shall create an issue on CXF side and request a rollback the
changes done with CXF-7317
Thank you,
Kind regards,
Thomas
--
Sent from: http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/cxf-user-f547216.html
Re: Clarification on Content-ID HTTP Header for XOP attachments
Posted by Dennis Kieselhorst <de...@apache.org>.
Hi Thomas!
> Now the question: What is correct and why? From my understanding the fix with CXF-7317 was wrong and violates rfc2392.
> But maybe someone else could clarify this why CXF-7317 is still ok.
Can you elaborate a bit more on your interpretation of RFC 2392?
There is an example in the RFC:
"cid:foo4%25foo1@bar.net" corresponds to Content-ID: <fo...@bar.net>
To me the explanation of the PR looked clear that's why a merged it.
Regards
Dennis