I also have a call conflict for today's call. i support Mikkel's
view on this - the rechartering is a good step forward, but there is
a risk of loosing momentum. We should be capitalizing on the
progress PEPPOL and other LSPs have made in this area. That is, we
should be building on what we have, not what we would like to see.
On 29/02/12 10:28 PM, Mikkel Hippe Brun wrote:
Dear all,
I will
unfortunately be in transit during todays call due to a
delayed flight.
I do
support the change to the TC's charter if it means wider
support to the TC's
work from the other large scale pilots. I do however have
concerns about the
widening of the scope as it will impact the speed with which
the TC can work
(Mike's argument).
One
important criteria that is fundamental for the large scale
pilots mentioned in the
charter is that there is very little willingness to establish
and fund more
than the most essential shared infrastructure components. It
is therefore in my
opinion very important that the technologies that the TC
explores for service
discovery and addressing piggybacks on existing Internet
infrastructure like
DNS.
I don’t
find UDDI or ebXML RegRep to be operational and scalable for
large scale
infrastructures. We may as a TC and individuals find the
standards behind UDDI or ebXML
RegRep to be
appropriate, but the reference implementations are not battle
proven for large
scale use. And it is my very strong opinion that the TC should
focus on
technologies that are battle proven and can be put into use
immediately.
Finally - I would like
to step down as chair for the TC, but I would like to continue
as TC member.
Best regards
Mikkel
On Tuesday, February 21, 2012, Kenneth Bengtsson wrote:
Hi Jens
Jakob
I very much agree with you that this is an important design
goal and
objective for a number of applications (PEPPOL for example).
At the same
time I also believe we must acknowledge that other
applications can have
different requirements and implementation architectures.
One of the important reasons for the proposed recharter is to
allow for a
broader and more general application of the BDX
specifications. This
doesn't mean that we in PEPPOL will accept to have specific
protocol
requirements imposed on the "final leg" between gateway and
enduser, I
strongly agree with you on this. What it means is that we see
an advantage
in opening up the possible use cases for BDX, and not let the
requirements
of one project stand in the way of a more broad adoption.
Best regards,
Kenneth
On 2/20/12 8:15 AM, "Jens Jakob Andersen" <jjan@itst.dk> wrote:
>Hi Kenneth
>
>Thank you for the clarifications.
>
>I still cant see in the specs, that is is a _must_, that
the protocols to
>be used between gateways must be agnostic to whatever is
used on the
>first & last legs.
>
>Some of the "GW to GW" protocols I have seen demonstrated,
has many
>features that can only be usefull, when the same family of
protocol is
>used end-2-end.
>
>The original design-goal of BDX was to deliver a
"meta-protocol" to be
>used between gateways - to interconnect different domains.
And supporting
>many different transport-protocols below.
>
>From my (fast fading viewpoint as I am leaving the TC),
these
>design-goals should be kept as the TC's design-goals.
>
>Best regards
>
>Jens Jakob
>
>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
>Fra: Kenneth Bengtsson [mailto:kenneth@alfa1lab.com]
>Sendt: 13. februar 2012 15:58
>Til: Jens Jakob Andersen; Tim McGrath
>Cc: bdx@lists.oasis-open.org
>Emne: Re: SV: [bdx] SV: Proposal for a TC recharter
>
>Hi Jens Jakob
>
>As Tim already mentioned, the 4-corner model is described
already in the
>first paragraph.
>
>With regards to "connecting islands":
>
>In the first paragraph is stated that BDX describes a
model "where two
>entities exchange business documents in a secure and
reliable way through
>the use of gateways". If we can agree that it is in the
definition of a
>gateway that it has two sides, then it is in logic that
the two entities
>exchanging business documents must each connect to their
respective
>gateways, and that the gateways must connect to one
another. Then you
>have the first, the last, and the middle "leg" of the
transaction. If you
>read the second and third paragraph of the statement of
purpose and
>replace "domain" with "island", then I think you will
agree that it is
>actually in the proposed purpose statement to "connect
different islands
>of networks".
>It is my understanding that the term "island" is mainly
used in
>procurement jargon, why we have used the more generic term
"domain" to
>describe exactly the same. This is also to signal that the
potential use
>of BDX goes beyond procurement and e-commerce business
documents - BDX
>can be used for any type of electronic business document.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Kenneth
>
>
>On 2/13/12 9:44 AM, "Jens Jakob Andersen" <jjan@itst.dk> wrote:
>
>>Hi Tim
>>
>>Thank you for the clarification.
>>
>>That is half of it.
>>
>>What I am looking for is the other part of the
4-corner model, that
>>different protocols can be used on the "first leg" and
"last leg" and
>>the "inbetween" part can be a standardized
"meta-protocol" such as
>>START - open for mapping to "any" actual protocol.
>>
>>This is the core of the idea of START /and BusDox and
BDX/ - that the
>>challenge is to "connect different islands of
networks".
>>
>>The acid-test for any change should (IMHO) be: "Can it
deliver the
>>value mentioned, in a setup with different
protols/implementations on
>>the first and last leg".
>>
>>Best regards
>>
>>Jens Jakob
>>
>>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
>>Fra: Tim McGrath [mailto:tim.mcgrath@documentengineeringservices.com]
>>Sendt: 13. februar 2012 11:22
>>Til: Jens Jakob Andersen
>>Cc: Kenneth Bengtsson; bdx@lists.oasis-open.org
>>Emne: Re: [bdx] SV: Proposal for a TC recharter
>>
>>it is in the statement of purpose.
>>> The BDX standard will describe an architecture
(or sets of reference
>>>architectures) where two entities exchange bu
--
Best regards,
Mikkel
Mikkel Hippe Brun
Chief Strategy Officer, Cofounder
Voice: +45 3118 9102
Skype: hippebrun
Twitter: @hippebrun @tradeshift
Mail: mhb@tradeshift.com
Web: http://tradeshift.com
-- INVOICING HAS NEVER BEEN EASIER --
|