soapAction vs WSA:Action confusion

[Greg Carver]

I want to raise an issue that came up last year at connectathon regarding the wsdl, and which I see coming up again in our recent hpd federation calls. What's happening is implementators are using conflicting values for the soap header Action, ie:

<s:Envelope xmlns:s="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope" xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">

<s:Header>

<a:Action s:mustUnderstand="1">urn:ihe:iti:hpd:2010:ProviderInformationQueryRequest</a:Action>

What's happening is many implementations are using the //binding/operation/operation/@soapAction value from the wsdl (reference wsdl) and using the values urn:ihe:iti:hpd:2010:ProviderInformationQueryRequest and urn:ihe:iti:hpd:2010:ProviderInformationFeedRequest in their soap header.

But this ignores the WSA specified values in //portType/operation/./@Action, namely urn:ihe:iti:2010:ProviderInformationQuery, urn:ihe:iti:2010:ProviderInformationQueryResponse, urn:ihe:iti:2010:ProviderInformationFeed, and urn:ihe:iti:2010:ProviderInformationFeedResponse (notice hpd: absent and input operations aren't postfixed with Request).  These values are also explicitly specified in the HPD draft supplement.

In many IHE specs, the soapAction equals the wsaw:Action, so the issue doesn't come up. But here they're different. I'm not a wsdl expert, but it's my understanding that the WSA specified values should trump the soapAction values entirely. And so for me to be seeing other vendors submitting/expecting the soapAction seems incorrect.

Can anyone shed some light on whats going on here? Is the spec wrong? Does the wsdl need fixing? Is my wsdl understanding above incorrect? Are others' soap tools incorrectly interpreting the wsdl?  What values *should* be used in the soap header action?  I'd like to get this nailed down because last year was a mess at connectathon.  I saw all kinds of values being passed around, including blank strings.

Thanks,

Greg

[Christian Ohr]

Well, apparently from what I heard from the CAT 2015, it happened again... confusion about the WSDL and the lack of definition of whether WS-Addressing is to be used or not. Leading to clients not being able to query or feed directories.
So, how about creating a CP to get this eventually fixed? I can offer to give it a try, however, I'm not a WSDL expert either so any help on this is appreciated.

regards
Christian

[Greg Carver]

Yeah, it was, but I managed to wrangle a half-dozen systems over to my interpretation :-)

I'm disappointed no one with more familiarity with WSDL has jumped in though to help navigate this.  I know enough WSDL to be dangerous, but it's hardly something I interact with regularly.  As for a CP, I'm not even sure if that's necessary?  I'm don't think the wdsl published on the IHE/ITI github is technically part of the spec.  As such, it just needs to be fixed up to conform with the various core IHE webservices requirements.

Greg

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ihe-hpd-implementors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ihe-hpd-implemen...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.