| Author |
Message |
Marc Elwood
New member
Username: Marc2902
Post Number: 1
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 05:06 am: | |
Hello,
We just started testing the trial version of NowSMS to see if we can start using this product for MMS delivery to an MMSC from a mobile operator.
However, we are getting the following error response from the MMSC:
<soap-env:Envelope xmlns:soap-env="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/">
<soap-env:Header>
<TransactionID xmlns="http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/23_series/23.140/schema/REL-5-MM7-1-0" soap-env:mustUnderstand="1">20071214112107-AAB62BCA-x40x-2kpap120</TransactionID >
</soap-env:Header>
<soap-env:Body>
<soap-env:Fault>
<soap-env:faultcode>Server.Service</soap-env:faultcode>
<soap-env:faultstring>Server Error</soap-env:faultstring>
<soap-env:Detail>
<Status xmlns="http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/23_series/23.140/schema/REL-5-MM7-1-0">
<StatusCode>4004</StatusCode>
<StatusText>Validation Error</StatusText>
<Details>Validation violation: Message (MM7Schema) validation failed</Details></Status>
</soap-env:Detail>
</soap-env:Fault>
</soap-env:Body>
</soap-env:Envelope>
NowSMS sends the following MM7 SOAP message:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<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-MM7-1-0" env:mustUnderstand="1">20071214112107-AAB62BCA-x40x-2kpap120</TransactionID>
</env:Header>
<env:Body>
<SubmitReq xmlns="http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/23_series/23.140/schema/REL-5-MM7-1-0">
<MM7Version>5.3.0</MM7Version>
<SenderIdentification>
<VASPID>removed</VASPID>
<VASID>removed</VASID>
<SenderAddress>4411</SenderAddress>
</SenderIdentification>
<Recipients>
<To>
<Number>+31612345678</Number>
</To>
</Recipients>
<DeliveryReport>true</DeliveryReport>
<Priority>Normal</Priority>
<Subject>MMS demo, 11:21</Subject>
<Content href="cid:mms_cid" />
</SubmitReq>
</env:Body>
</env:Envelope>
First we used REL-5-MM7-1-2 which caused the same error but on the TransactionID. After we changed it to REL-5-MM7-1-0 it happens on the Message.
Do you have any idea what we need to change to make this work?
Kind regards,
Marc |
Marc Elwood
New member
Username: Marc2902
Post Number: 2
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 07:42 am: | |
Furthermore,
I notice that <MessageClass>Personal</MessageClass> and allowAdaptations="true" in the <Content> tag are not sent out by NowSMS, although we do specify those in the MMS submitted to NowSMS. How can this be done?
The default message class is Informational and we would like to change it to Personal instead.
Thanks in advance,
Marc |
Bryce Norwood - NowSMS Support
Board Administrator
Username: Bryce
Post Number: 7519
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 03:23 pm: | |
Hi Marc,
This is interesting.
You raise a good point that we do not include <MessageClass>Personal</MessageClass>. Our code mistakenly assumes that Personal is the default, when Informational is the default. We need to fix this.
Since it appears that the MMSC that you are connecting to is using the REL-5-MM7-1-0 schema (based upon your experience with a previous error regarding the TransactionID going away when switching to this schema ... and the fact that the new error response does include a TransactionID, indicating that is now understood) ... I've been reviewing the REL5 1.0 schema, looking for idiosyncracies ... and I've got an idea.
By strict XML guidelines, the "+" character is not valid in a recipient phone number under the REL5 1.0 schema. Try sending to a number without including the "+" and see if that makes a difference.
If it does, then it looks like we need to consider automatically removing this when using this old schema.
-bn |
Marc Elwood
New member
Username: Marc2902
Post Number: 3
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Friday, December 21, 2007 - 03:03 am: | |
Hello Bryce,
Thanks a lot for your response. After removing the "+" characters from the recipient phone number the messages are accepted, so this was clearly the solution.
When do you think the default MessageClass will be updated?
Have a great Christmas.
BR, Marc
|
|
Search
Last
