MM7 negative response

MM7 negative response SearchSearch

SMS & MMS Technical Forum » NowSMS Support - MMS & Advanced Issues (Product Support Only) » Archive through June 09, 2011 » MM7 negative response « Previous || Next »
Author Message
Vladi
New member
Username: Vladku

Post Number: 8
Registered: 06-2009
Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 - 10:27 am:   

Hello,
we are using NowSMS as a test MMSC over MM7 with our VASP application. The scanario under test is validate the MMSC MM7 negative response according to specification (3GPP TS 23.140 V5.3.0, and conform the appropriate response per section 8.7.8.3(Status Reporting).

Could you please advice, provide a reference why the message format used by NowSMS is not as expected by above specification.
Thanks in advance,


}The NowSMS response :

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Via: 1.1 STAGETMG2
Connection: Keep-Alive
Proxy-Connection: Keep-Alive
Content-Length: 582
Content-Type: text/xml

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<env:Envelope xmlns:env="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/">
<env:Header>
<TransactionID xmlns="http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/23_series/23.140/schema/REL-5-MM7-1-3" env:mustUnderstand="1">20100510182817-315E3E8D@</TransactionID>
</env:Header>
<env:Body>
<RSErrorRsp xmlns="http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/23_series/23.140/schema/REL-5-MM7-1-3">
<MM7Version>5.3.0</MM7Version>
<Status>
<StatusCode>4003</StatusCode>
<StatusText>Unsupported Operation</StatusText>
<Details>No valid recipients</Details>
</Status>
</RSErrorRsp>
</env:Body>
</env:Envelope>

T
This is what we'd expect according to the specification

HTTP/1.1 500 Internal Server
Content-Length: xxx
Content-Type: text/xml

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<env:Envelope xmlns:env="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/">
<env:Header>
<TransactionID xmlns="http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/23_series/23.140/schema/REL-5-MM7-1-3" env:mustUnderstand="1">20100510182817-315E3E8D@</TransactionID>
</env:Header>
<env:Body>
<env:Fault>
<faultcode>env:Client</faultcode>
<faultstring>Client error</faultstring>
<detail>
<RSErrorRsp xmlns="http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/23_series/23.140/schema/REL-5-MM7-1-3">
<MM7Version>5.3.0</MM7Version>
<Status>
<StatusCode>4003</StatusCode>
<StatusText>Unsupported Operation</StatusText>
<Details>No valid recipients</Details>
</Status>
</RSErrorRsp>
</detail>
</env:Fault>
</env:Body>
</env:Envelope>
Bryce Norwood - NowSMS Support
Board Administrator
Username: Bryce

Post Number: 7926
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 - 04:51 pm:   

Hi Vladi,

I would mostly agree. According to Section 8.7.8.3 of that specification, we should be encoding the error response within the <detail> element of an <env:Fault>.

However 3GPP TS 23.140 is contradictory with regard to this point. I would further refer you to Section 8.7.9.13 of the specification which defines the MM7_RS_error.RES mapping.

The Information Element Message-Type, RSErrorRsp in this case, is "Defined as Root element of SOAP Body".

These two sections appear to contradict each other. If 8.7.8.3 is followed, then RSErrorRsp is no longer the Root element of the SOAP Body.

In the case of this contradiction, we chose to follow 8.7.9.13.

While this contradiction persists in subsequent version updates to the specification, additional examples have been added in newer versions of the specification that would suggest 8.7.9.13 (and 8.7.9.14) are mistaken. Specifically, section 8.7.9.4 has been updated with an example that shows a VASPErrorRsp. Early versions of that example show the VASPErrorRsp in the <detail> element of a SOAP <env:Fault>, but with an "HTTP/1.1 200 OK" response code. Later versions change it to an HTTP response code of "HTTP/1.1 500 Internal Server Error", because SOAP 1.1, Section 6.2 requires a this HTTP response code in the event of a SOAP fault response.

Needless to say, this is not the only case of errors in the MM7 specification, which, as a result, requires applications to be somewhat tolerant of variations.

After giving this considerable thought, I would agree with your assessment. I can only conclude that Section 8.7.9.13 and 8.7.9.14 are incorrect in stating that the message type is "Defined as Root element of SOAP Body", and that Section 8.7.8.3 should take precedence.

We will correct our behaviour to follow 8.7.8.3 in the next update.

-bn
Vladi
New member
Username: Vladku

Post Number: 9
Registered: 06-2009
Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 - 06:55 pm:   

many thanks, Bryce
Des - NowSMS Support
Board Administrator
Username: Desosms

Post Number: 2626
Registered: 08-2008
Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 08:18 pm:   

Hi Vladi,

Apologies for not following up on this earlier. This issue is addressed in an interim update at http://www.nowsms.com/download/nowsms20101104.zip.

--
Des
NowSMS Support
Vladi
New member
Username: Vladku

Post Number: 10
Registered: 06-2009
Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2010 - 04:25 pm:   

Thank you

Topics Topics Search Last 30 Days Login Login / Register Logout Logout