A cautionary tale for those who believe they have the grand interoperability mojo.There once was a big customer, an XML appliance and a web services stack. The XML appliance implemented HTTP 1.1, aka RFC 2616 and MIME, aka RFC 2046 as most expect one to. They also implemented SOAP with Attachments and the WS-I Attachments Profile, as all good enterprisey people should.
But there was something odd about how many carriage return + line feeds (CRLF) to include between the last HTTP header and the start of a multipart/* entity body. The appliance sent three CRLFs, and required three, and rejected that which did not have three. The web services stack sent two and expected two, but tolerated more. Sending multipart messages to the appliance broke.
Big customer complained. XML appliance didn't budge. Web services stack, like all good software groups, believed they were in error, and fixed the issue. All was well for over a year...
...Until application server A came onto the scene. It, strangely, exhibited the same problem as the web services stack did many months prior. Big customer complained: You are out of compliance! We require compliance! You are trying to lock us in! The big customer & application server vendor both beat their heads together, thinking that perhaps the RFCs were inconsistent, or ambiguous. Eventually big customer figured that compliance is irrelevant (though, naturally, after the non-compliance tongue-lashing), interoperability is more important, whatever the fix.
In the end, of course, the RFCs, one of which dates back to 1996, are not inconsistent. It's that implementers sometimes don't read carefully.
The misleading part is in RFC 2046, Section 5.1.1:
"NOTE: The CRLF preceding the boundary delimiter line is conceptually attached to the boundary so that it is possible to have a part that does not end with a CRLF (line break). "But when one reads the BNF, we notice this isn't always true:
dash-boundary := "--" boundary ; boundary taken from the value of ; boundary parameter of the ; Content-Type field. multipart-body := [preamble CRLF] dash-boundary transport-padding CRLF body-part *encapsulation close-delimiter transport-padding [CRLF epilogue] encapsulation := delimiter transport-padding CRLF body-part delimiter := CRLF dash-boundaryWherein we see that the first MIME multipart dash-boundary doesn't include a CRLF. That CRLF is rolled into the preamble as optional. Unfortunately, it doesn't help matters when the WS-I Attachments Profile, Section 3.12, R2936 says:
"Certain implementations have been shown to produce messages in which the MIME encapsulation boundary string is not preceded with a CRLF (carriage-return line-feed). This creates problems for implementations which correctly expect that the encapsulation boundary string is preceded by a CRLF.... RFC2046 section 5.5.1 clearly requires that all encapsulation boundaries must be preceded with a CRLF (carriage-return line-feed)."Yikes. I've sent an email feedback to the WS-I organization indicating that this seems to be a misstatement.
Informal testing (ymmv) indicates spotty compliance of how many CRLFs are between the last HTTP header and the first MIME boundary:
- Application Server A inserts 2 CR/LF, expects at least 2
- Application Server B inserts 3 CR/LFs, expects at least 2
- Application Server C inserts 2 CR/LFs, expects at least 2
- Web Services Library A inserts 3 CR/LFs, expects at least 2
- Web Services Library B inserts 2 CR/LFs, expects at least 2
- XML Appliance inserts 3 CR/LFs, requires at least 3
- do not just trust specification text -- read the formal grammar
- "compliance" doesn't necessarily mean interoperability
- software seems more forgiving than hardware