[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: No call on 2010-02-26
Hello, Since I wrote the minutes for the CPP/CPA call I learned that I will be travelling on Friday, so I am cancelling the call. In the mean time, your review of the proposed changes and any comments to the list are welcome. Thanks, Pim -----Original Message----- From: Pim van der Eijk [mailto:pvde@sonnenglanz.net] Sent: 15 February 2010 15:11 To: ebcore-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [ebcore-cppa] Notes from CPP/CPA call 2010-02-12 1) Discussion of schema enhancements and examples for pull and sync TC member discussed the proposals (a.o. use of <RelatedChannels/>), but need more time to review time. By next meeting, we will decide whether the changes are worth pursuing. If yes, the next steps are to work out the precise specifications for all types of related channels, for all protocols that CPA supports. 2) Cristiano's request Pete looked into this. There are some extensibility points, but they don't seem to provide what Cristiano requested. With a document (or constituent part), we would need to specify (i) the referenced external document, (ii) the namespace or type of such a document and (iii) some indication of the what the external document says about the document or part. Like additional validation constraints, profiling rules, other types of semantic alignment. Dale proposes to bring some more people to the discussion and will draft some input for discussion. Next call on 26th of this Month. Next schedule ebCore TC meeting on 19th of this Month. N.B. I took the liberty to extract the PartyId type specification from the CPA draft and am proposing it to the ebCore TC as a standalone (mini)spec. Pim -----Original Message----- From: Pim van der Eijk [mailto:pvde@sonnenglanz.net] Sent: 08 February 2010 11:20 To: ebcore-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [ebcore-cppa] CPP/CPA call this Friday Hello, Brief notes from this call: 1) We discussed the proposed changes and discussion. So far, CPPA has attempted to be maximally compatible with version 2.0. Some of the new constructs (like RelatedChannels) are covering and extending the functionality of MessagingCharacteristics. The spec needs to indicate which features are included for compatibility and make recommendations how new CPAs should be set up. The concept of RelatedChannels can also be used to cover synchronous replies and Pull mode. Pim will send an update some time this week with examples for the next meeting (which is this Friday, February 12). We also need to talk more about the concept of multiple CPAs (with business partners, intermediaries) at the same time and how CPA formation would work. 2) We looked at Cristiano's input. Pete and Dale think that the current schema can accomodate his need, as there is an extensibility option to add attributes. This could be used for adding references to XSDs and other documents, like Schematron definitions. They will prepare some input for next meeting. Pim -----Original Message----- From: Pim van der Eijk [mailto:pvde@sonnenglanz.net] Sent: 27 January 2010 21:02 To: ebcore-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [ebcore-cppa] CPP/CPA call this Friday Hello, Reminder about are meeting next Friday. Agenda topics: 1) Continued discussion of support for ebMS 3.0 intermediaries in CPA 3.0. 2) Cristiano has asked us to discuss the topic he raised September last year, see email below. Pim -----Original Message----- From: Cristiano Novelli [mailto:cristiano.novelli@enea.it] Sent: 04 September 2009 11:17 To: Pim van der Eijk Subject: Re: [ebcore] CPP/CPA enhancement suggestions Hi Pim, could be useful a way to describe files associate to the business document XML Schemas (specified in the SimplePart), but that don't become part of the message; this file (associate to the XML Schema of a business document) could be, for example: a report file, or a documentation file about the collaboration, or a CAM template file, or something that is useful retrieve in the agreement matching task. To describe in CPPA this reference associate file it could be need, for example, something like SimplePart/NamespaceAssociate/@location Is there something or a way like this? What do you think about it? Best Regards ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- Cristiano Novelli ENEA, SIC - UDA - PMI info http://summer.bologna.enea.it/~cristiano/information/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pim van der Eijk" <pvde@sonnenglanz.net> To: <ebcore@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 10:56 PM Subject: [ebcore] CPP/CPA enhancement suggestions > > > > Here are some brief descriptions of potential enhancement requests for > ebXML CPP/CPA, for tomorrow's meeting. Depending on interest from the > TC, these could be developed further. > > Warning: these are rough ideas, hopefully the description conveys the > general ideas. > > 1) Supporting end-to-end agreements in multihop: abstracting from > hop-specific parameters > > In the current CPP/CPA schema, a <DeliveryChannel> defines both > quality of service (security, reliability) that applies "end-to-end" and > settings that are different from hop to hop. The transport > <Endpoint>, SSL settings and MEP binding (pull or push) are between > the initiator and the first hop, and between the responder and the last > hop. They are not end-to-end agreement features. > > Requirement: allow partner agreements that abstract from the per-hop > settings and express only the end-to-end settings. This hides the > local parameters and allows both partners to use the exact same > agreement. > > A simple option is to make @transportId in <DeliveryChannel> > optional. The CPA is then the same for sender and recipient and can be > digitally signed. The transport configuration is declared out of scope > for the agreement. > > Analogy to email: our ebMS header and WS-A routing parameter are > structures for end-to-end routing, like the RFC 2822 email address > "user@domain". The sender has its private settings for SMTP and > recipient for IMAP/POP3 servers, and both can reconfigure them > independently and without the other party knowing, as long as the edge > hops can establish a message forwarding path. > > In this case a CPA no longer is sufficient to fully configure an ebMS > MSH, like CPA 2.0 XML documents are today. The missing information > needs to be added to each deliveryChannel so that the MSH can function > properly. We could leave how this is done to products or define a > standard XML format for it. The missing information plus the > end-to-end agreements can be merged to generate a classic, complete > CPA. But that "CPA" could be different for sender and recipient, > especially if there is more than one intermediary. > > Note that this is already the case with ebMS 2.0 if e.g. one party > uses an SSL terminator and the other does not: the <Transport> > elements in the CPA are already different. > > (Note: this mapping from channels or messages to "local" transport > configurations is like the unspecified "routing function" that > intermediaries must implement. See an earlier proposal in > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-cppa/200811/msg00 000.html. ) > > 2) Extending <DocExchange> and using WS-Addressing > > In Part 2 we are using WS-Addressing. The <ebXMLSenderBinding> and > <ebXMLReceiverBinding> elements now have sections for (end-to-end) > security and reliability. The <DocExchange> element should contain > information that expresses whether the exhange is point-to-point > (default) or multihop. If multihop, we could use some defined > attribute value to express that the forward EPR reference parameter is > constructed using the default algorithm (which constructs an EPR that > mirros an ebMS UserMessage). The DocExchange group would then be > reusable for many different service/action combinations. > > We could also allow explicitly setting other WSA fields like Reply-To. > > 3) Delivery channels for "response" signals > > With some delivery channels there are associated signals: pull > requests, errors, acknowledgements, receipts. These can all use EPRs > in a multihop context. If one of these EPRs does not use the default > values mentioned in the spec, the DeliveryChannel should specify this > EPR explicitly and therefore becomes less reusable. > > The CPA 3.0 draft XSD has an Endpoint type that can express whether an > endpoint is used for various uses (e.g. errors). It may be more > flexible to have separate explicit delivery channels for these signals > and have a reference from the <DeliveryChannel> that is used for the > business message to e.g. an @errorChannel, @initiatingChannel (for > Pull or Sync), @receiptChannel, @errorChannel. That way, for each > signal associated with a channel you can set security, addressing and > other parameters explicitly. (Using @defaultMshChannelId and > OverrideMshActionBinding, you can set global defaults for all signal > channels, or channels of some type, but there is a need to be able to > set this per delivery channel). > > 4) Configuring PullRequest > > We now support the ebMS 3.0 "pull" feature in CPA 3.0 draft by having > an <Endpoint> element on the <TransportSender> element. (Section > 4.3.8 of the latest CPA 3.0 draft). This expresses that the sender > acts as the HTTP server, unlike in CPPA 2.0 where the HTTP server > endpoint is always associated with the receiver. This is not enough > to fully configure the ebMS 3.0 PullRequest. The pull request may be > secured using WS-Security, it may or may not be sent reliably, and may > or may not have WS-Addressing configuration (routing parameters). I > think the PullRequest should have its own DeliveryChannel (even in > regular point-to-point ebMS) and there could be a reference > @initiatingSignalChannel from the business message <DeliveryChannel> > element to the channel that the pull request uses. > > In multihop, we have distinguished two cases: > - Local pulling: only an edge intermediary needs to be aware of, and > configured for, the pulling. Pull requests are not reliable: > end-to-end retransmission; authorisation with intermediary locally. > - End-to-end pulling: here we have subcases based on routing based on > the @mpc (no reference parameter needed) or routing using a reference > parameters. Global authorisation: receiver has authorisation > agreement with sender. > > So the proposed @pullRequest parameter (that links a delivery channel > for a business message to the delivery channel for the pull request > signal) is either an end-to-end configuration, agreed between sender > and recipient, or a local configuration. > > 5) Synchronous responses > > The CPA 2.0 used nesting of CanReceive in CanSend (or vice versa) to > indicate synchronous responses. The new ActionBinding elements can > also be nested. I would like to have a way of expressing that a > message on some channel is using the transport backchannel, other than > nesting but by just using a different DeliveryChannel. This way, > whether or not a CanReceive is a synchronous response to a CanSend, is > expressed in the channel, not by nesting. > > Motivation: in a CPP, you could have say 3 CanSends and 5 CanReceives. > These are associated with one or more DeliveryChannels. In CPP > intersection those channels are matched against another CPP that > should have 3 CanReceives and 5 CanSends. If synchronous response is > expressed as nesting, a partner that supports synchronous and > asynchronous will have a duplicate ActionBinding, one with a nested > ActionBinding and the other without one. It is simpler if there is > just a single mechanism (multiple alternative <DeliveryChannel> > elements) to express this. CPP intersection is must simpler. > > There already is a @syncReplyMode parameter in the CPP/CPA, but it is > in MessagingCharacteristics which is optional. We could have an > attribute @usesTransportBackChannel with default value false. If true, > there could be an @initiatingDeliveryChannelId parameter that > identifies the other delivery channel that a particular channel uses > the backchannel from. > > These two parameters could also be used for PullRequest as in (4) to > reference the pull request delivery channel that the message uses the > backchannel of. > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ --------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_work groups.php > ------------------------------------------------------------ --------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_work groups.php ------------------------------------------------------------ --------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_work groups.php ------------------------------------------------------------ --------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_work groups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]