Glad the article is helpful. Post a link to my blog if you can.

Cheers,
Jeroen

But I am wondering whether, can we send multiple URLs in a WAP push message?

Here is the description from the SI spec:

“The info element provides a means to specify additional information not provided by the attributes of the indication element. The element contains one or more item elements that specify the additional information. Each item element contains a class attribute describing what information the content of the item element contains. How a client uses this information is not specified within this specification and is thus implementation dependent. A client MAY discard the info element.”

A WAP Push SI message with signal-none is intended to pass the info element without notifying the user. After the info element has been processed, the client can discard the WAP Push message. I don’t know if or how it is used by anybody.

- For “action=signal-none” insert 0×05
- For “action=signal-low” insert 0×06
- For “action=signal-medium” insert 0×07
- For “action=signal-high” insert 0×08
- For “action=delete” insert 0×09

Don’t forget to adjust the UDL.

Good luck,
Jeroen

Have worked with all of them OK; except 0×05
the sms is effectively sent but phone apparently receives it and discards it; So it is like a ping
to check if phone is working or available.
Is this thought of mine right?
Regards
Franco

You have the correct code value for the Content-Type. I am convinced that if your device has implemented the feature, it will recognize the code. The idea of well-known (in the WSP spec) is ’standard, but not part of WSP itself’. At the time of of the WSP spec (2001?) MMS was known, but EMN was not, that’s all. Every code added afterward was in the 0×0100 – 0xFFFF rage simply because they didn’t want to change the mature WSP spec anymore.

If the code would be in the rage 0×10000 to 0xFFFFFF, I’d be worried. Those are proprietary or experimental.

Cheers,
Jeroen

many thanks for your prompt feedback.
Yes, I send Push over UDP/IP and phones I have indeed support such bearer, I’m trying to understand if they support EMN as well.

From OMA web site (http://www.openmobilealliance.org/tech/omna/omna-wsp-content-type.aspx)

—
0×00 to 0xFF - Well-Known values, named in the WSP specification.
0×0100 to 0xFFFF - Registered values, listed below. Must be IANA-registered before assigned a number.
—

Sounds like my 0×030a is indeed registered but not a “well-known-value”.
What’s your opinion?

From my experience for instance I’ve seen MMS notification coming with application/vnd.wap.mms-message instead of 0×3E (actually defined in 1.4 of encoding version).

Back to my EMN experiments, it might be a problem of Wireshark, but I still don’t feel comfortable with “well-know” definition in WSP
Hope you can help
Thanks
Massi

When encoding the content-type it is always best to use the encoding. The client will be programmed for size and efficiency which make the encodings preferred (which is why they were invented in the first place).

The second attempt seems right:

- Content-type is encoded as Value-length + Media-type

- Media-type is encoded as a Well-known-media

- Well-known-media is encoded as an Integer

- Integer is encoded as a Long-integer

- Long-integer is encoded as Length + Value

Just curious: Since Wireshark captures only IP traffic, are you trying to send this as an UDP packet?
Are you sure the recipient:

- Supports the EMN?

- Listens on the right IP address?

Very curious about your setup….

Good luck,
Jeroen

I’m investigating the OMA Email Notification (EMN), which has Content-Type = application/vnd.wap.emn+wbxml (0×030a).
This C-Type is 2 bytes long, while in your examples both SI and SL are 1 byte only.
So now my question is, when encoding the C-Type shall I use either the text plain format or the hex value or can use any of them?

Below WSP headers I’ve used:

1) application/vnd.wap.emn+wbxml
T-ID = 0×01
PDU Type = 0×06
Headers- Length = 0x 34
C-Type = 0x 61 70 70 6c 69 63 61 74 69 6f 6e 2f 76 6e 64 2e 77 61 70 2e 65 6d 6e 2b 77 62 78 6d 6c 00
X-WAP-App-ID = 0x af 89
Content-Length = 0x 8d a0
— payload —

2) 0×030A
T-ID = 0×01
PDU Type = 0×06
Headers- Length = 0x 08
C-Type = 0x 03 02 03 0a
X-WAP-App-ID = 0x af 89
Content-Length = 0x 8d a0
— payload —

I’ve tried both but Wireshark looks recognizing the text format only (1), so my doubt:
is (2) actually correct?

Thanks
Massi