[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: non-ebXML links
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 09:39:35 -0700 From: "Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com> Dan Weinreb (I hope) said: "I think that someone reading the current ebXML MS spec, as it is currently worded, could easily be forgiven for thinking that there is no such concept as a "non-ebXML link in the path between two intermediaries". I don't think the existing spec, as currently worded, gives the reader any warning that such a thing is being contemplated." I agree that this idea is new to me. If there are such links, I think that they should have as much relevance as the fact that routers are routing IP packets between autonomous systems! We should be concerned with ebXML MS speakers, and the protocols for their message exchange(s). Actually, upon further reflection, I realize that my statement that the spec doesn't give you "any warning" is not correct. The warning is in these subsections: 8.7.4 reliableMessagingMethod attribute The reliableMessagingMethod attribute is an enumeration that SHALL have one of the following values: -- ebXML -- Transport The default implied value for this attribute is ebXML. 10.1.2 Methods of Implementing Reliable Messaging Support for Reliable Messaging MAY be implemented in one of the following two ways: -- using the ebXML Reliable Messaging protocol, or -- using ebXML SOAP structures together with commercial software products that are designed to provide reliable delivery of messages using alternative protocols. When I first read the spec I was somewhat confused by these sections. They could be interpreted as "scriptural basis" for Marty's position that we want to allow pairs of IM's to make independent choices about what protocol to use. After all, section 10.1.2 clearly states that you MAY elect to *not* "use the ebXML Reliable Messaging protocol". This clearly implies that there is such a thing as "using the ebXML MS Spec protocol *but* *not* using the ebXML Reliable Messaging protocol". That clearly implies that there is a *distinction* between the former protocol and the latter protocol, so that you can be conforming to one while not using the other. It sounds paradoxical. But I think it makes complete sense in terms of the separation of layers that about which I've been running off at the mouth (at the keyboard?): we all share the higher layer, but we have a choice about the lower layer, and that's exactly the choice that these two subsections are talking about. Do we care about "scriptural basis"? Should we be in the role of rabbis or judges interpreting a scripture or law that we were given, or should we just be the legislators and decide as we choose to decide? Perhaps for release 1.1 we should tend more toward the former, and for 2.0 tend more towards the latter? It's not for me to say. -- Dan
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC