Re: [ebxml-msg] RE: The Return Path Problem

[Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

Dan,

You explained the situation very well.  I have just one comment.

You said "It assumes that you never have two distinct MSH's within one
"party" that both implement the same
Service/Action.". It's really a naming thing.  David's assumption is that
there are never two pieces of software with the same service and action
names in the entire enterprise. In a company the size of, say, IBM or Sun,
that would not be a reasonable assumption. The "who"-like information that
you mention in your last paragraph is precisely the URL that gets the data
across the internet to the destination enterprise and thence across the
intranet to the system that supports the target application.

Regards,
Marty

*************************************************************************************

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************



Dan Weinreb <dlw@exceloncorp.com> on 11/12/2001 04:41:14 PM

Please respond to Dan Weinreb <dlw@exceloncorp.com>

To:    david.burdett@commerceone.com
cc:    ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:    Re: [ebxml-msg] RE: The Return Path Problem



In my mind, the topic of your paper is closely related to the
questions I've been asking about "how do you name an MSH" or "how do
you name a party".  I think there has been some confusion about what
we mean by a "party": is "ABC Co" is a party, or is "Order Management
MSH" a party?  Marty seemed to be suggesting the latter, to which I
replied that then a "partyId" would not be an identifier of a "party".

It looks to me like you're assuming:
  -- ABC Co. is one "party".  Order Management MSH is not a "party".
  -- A "party" is identified by a "partyId" (i.e. each partyId denotes
 one specific "party".
  -- There is one CPA, between the "parties", so there isn't a separate
 CPA for the different paths shown in your figure 1-1.

In your paper, you suggest using the Service and Action fields in
order to figure out how to route the message.  It seems to me that
there is a tacit assumption behind this suggestion, which I think
needs to be made explicit.  It assumes that you never have two
distinct MSH's within one "party" that both implement the same
Service/Action.

Is this really a safe assumption?  If a "party" might be a large
corporation, the corporation could have many divisions, each of which
provides the service "Purchasing" with the action "Submit PO".

It seems to me that Service & Action are an assertion about *what* to
do, not *who* is doing it.  For routing, we want to use "who-like"
information.

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>