From: Martin Forsberg [mailto:martin.forsberg@ecru.se]
Sent: 23 November 2011 12:58
To: Pim van der Eijk; 'Mike Edwards'; 'Moberg Dale'
Cc: 'Business Document Exchange TC List'
Subject: SV: [bdx] BDX address recipe outline.
Hi
Pim,
Regarding the social network/connect-analogy: We have been using ebms
for quite some time in Sweden and one of the biggest issues is that most
ebms-implementations require an agreement before-hand. This agreement (CPA) is
also referred to in the ebms-header. We have tried to build around this by
defining agreement-id schemes that can be deduced by other information elements
(like service/action). So for use, it really doesn?t give much
value.
All implementations that I come in contact with have a
?connect-feature? as part of their e-business software or e-invoice software
where they keep track of their business partners. To also maintain this on a
messaging-level (often outsourced to a service provider) is creating a lot of
extra work.
/Martin
Från:
bdx@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:bdx@lists.oasis-open.org] För Pim van
der Eijk
Skickat: den 23 november 2011 12:04
Till: 'Mike
Edwards'; 'Moberg Dale'
Kopia: 'Business Document Exchange TC
List'
Ämne: RE: [bdx] BDX address recipe
outline.
Today I
can only attend the first part of the meeting, so here is some written input in
case we don't get to discuss this.
First of
all, I think it is not just the people asking questions about, or proposing
alternatives to, the various specifications submitted to this TC who
should provide use cases and requirements. I would even more like to
see some more discussion of (and justification by their authors for) the
requirements and use cases that underly SML/SMP and related specifications
themselves, if memory serves the authors of those specifications
correctly. This will help us all to understand how general and reusable
these specifications are, and find and fix any aspects that perhaps are too
hard-wired to the specific PEPPOL context to be of general
use.
To
elaborate a bit: SML/SMP are not the first or only attempts at
specifications for e-business registry or capability _expression_
functionality, and there are both strong similarities and differences
compared to these earlier approaches. So as a start, an overview that
explains how the design of SML/SMP relates to (and why it differs from)
them would be useful. Some of these differences are interesting, but
not all of them strike me as improvements. I've mentioned before the absence of
the equivalents of ebXML CPP "CanSend"s in SMP. Another is the absence of a
concept of an agreement or service versioning. Without similar
concepts, in BDX, if I publish that I can receive a particular
version of a UBL invoice, how do I express that I only want that option to be
used by a specific limited set of trading partners? How can I
express that I only support a deprecated version for some established partners,
or for partners that sent me a a document of some related type before, but
want others to only use the newer one? How can I express that any
messages from me will be not be sent from any Access Point, but only
from a particular named Access Point that I trust using specific
credentials? Earlier established protocols like CPA support this very well
and are used in production today, I don't see how SML/SMP/BDX handles
this.
As an
analogy: in social networking, someone first has to connect to you before
he/she can send you messages or flood you with their network updates. You
have an option to not accept a connection
invitation. You even have an option to no longer accept invitations at all
(if you've set up your closed community). This seems to be something that
a register-based collaboration architecture should support if it wants to be a
general solution. The majority of e-government networks are closed or
semi-closed, e-procurement networks are the exception rather than the
rule. The OASIS EnergyInterop TC has a party registration service concept,
which could be combined with a limited capability matching/intersection
functionality. And no, I'm not buying that this functionality would be too
complex. SSL has long had a handshake mechanism and is one of the most
widely used Internet protocols. There are even handshakes in Web Services
protocols such as WS-ReliableMessaging. Capability intersection has been
implemented in CPPA and other specifications, all of which could be used or
profiled further if desired.
On the
particular subject of DNS, I read Dale's email (as far as I understand it)
as stating that it can do a lot more than SML/SMP use it for. So for
architectural coherence it might make sense to use it more generally in the BDX
architecture. I would rather raise a different issue: a major
drawback of a system that depends on DNS updates is administration overhead,
because DNS management is often outsourced to hosting providers or telcos. You
cannot typically update DNS records from a business application directly, but
have to go through some (often horribly slow) service management processes,
at best partly automated. Today, in some ebMS 2.0
environments I've worked in, connecting a new partner means writing
a CPA, which is usually simple and done in a few minutes, then waiting
a week or even longer for all the firewall changes, NAT rules etc. to be
implemented. I'm sure they're not looking forward to adding DNS update
dependencies in this mix ...
So I'm
wondering what problem DNS is a problem for. I know it offers scalability,
but is this level of scalability even needed for a business registry?
Previous e-business registry standards failed to take off, but lack of
scalability does not seem to rank highly on the list of reasons why.
Similar business registries, such as the GS1 GEPIR, or the various national
systems of chambres of commerce, seem to not have found the need for it,
yet they process (I have some hands-on experience with this) huge amounts of
queries using regular HTTP-based exchanges.
Pim
From: bdx@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:bdx@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Mike Edwards
Sent: 31 October 2011
17:07
To: Moberg Dale
Cc: Business Document Exchange TC
List
Subject: Re: [bdx] BDX address recipe outline.
Dale,
I don't
mean to be rude, but your post sounds like a solution looking for a
problem.
Just because DNS
permits the approach you describe, it isn't clear to me what real usecases are
dealt with using
this sort of
technique. Perhaps you could cover the major usecases that you see
addressed by such a solution?
As far as the
cryptographic hash is concerned, if my memory serves me correctly, it was
introduced somewhat unwillingly
into the PEPPOL model
once we realized that there were types of participant ID that could not be
accommodated in
standard address
strings used for DNS lookups. The hash technique chosen has the advantage
of always generating
a string that works
for the lookup while at the same time being available ubiquitously and so easily
accessible to any
software looking to
implement the PEPPOL protocols. The masking of the ID for commercial
purposes was not part of
the considerations as
far as I recall.
Yours, Mike
|
| |||
|
Dr
Mike Edwards |
Mail
Point 137, Hursley Park |
| |
|
STSM
|
Winchester,
Hants SO21 2JN | ||
|
SCA,
Cloud Computing & Services Standards |
United
Kingdom | ||
|
Co-Chair
OASIS SCA Assembly TC |
|
||
|
Chair
UK ISO SC38 mirror committee (Cloud & SOA) |
|
||
|
IBM
Software Group |
|
||
|
Phone:
|
+44-1962
818014 |
|
|
|
Mobile:
|
+44-7802-467431
(274097) |
|
|
|
e-mail:
|
|
||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
From:
|
Moberg Dale
<dmoberg@axway.com>
|
|
To:
|
Business
Document Exchange TC List <bdx@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
|
Date:
|
25/10/2011
18:51 |
|
Subject:
|
[bdx] BDX
address recipe outline. |
|
Sent
by: |
In this message, a
way to use IETF DNS functionality for the BDX address resolution is sketched.
The resolution using a canonical concatenated string of bdx metadata that
has been made opaque (in whole or part) by using a cryptographic hash.
Apparently this masking has been required to meet some commercial concerns
about not disclosing what organizations use which providers).
The main
point here is to show that BDX address lookup requirements are met by using a
known registry (DNS) with known internet scalability and manageability, using
already existing approved standards.
By
analogy with ENUM, (see information box below for an introduction to ENUM from
voip-info.org), we can therefore concatenate BDX service metadata identifiers to
a string in a canonical way, use sha-256 to produce a resource identifier,
introduce a DNS NAPTR record for that identifier in the ?peppol.org? domain or
whatever , do a DNS query on the resulting value, and resolve in a
standardized way (indicated by the ?A? flag of the NAPTR record) to A, AAAA or
A6 address records.
(For
extra spice, add DNSSEC to prevent cache poisoning at the ?peppol.org? domain.
Use DANE for DNS based PKI if desired for TLS. Many variations are possible for
the NAPTR string on concatenation order, separators, hashing procedures to
meet visibility or nondisclosure concerns. Another variation would insert a ?S?
flag in the NAPTR RR, and then look up SRV records for a domain name key, from
which address records would be obtained. This additional step would allow
multiple BDX servers to be advertised for a provider, e.g.)
IETF has
evolved DNS to support many use cases beyond simple FQDN to Inet address
lookups. Isn?t it preferable to actually use DNS, its query system, and its zone
update management procedures instead of creating a hybrid Web Service and DNS
mashup for a use case that is already easily handled by a simple profile of
current specifications?
From
http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/ENUM
You can
dial a telephone number and reach a SIP, H.323 or any other
Internet Telephony user. This all happens in the background; you do need to do
anything special while calling someone.
A server with ENUM support will
lookup a dialed telephone number in the ENUM tree of the DNS to see if there's
alternate ways to set up the call instead of just calling out on the PSTN telephone line.
ENUM may contain a reference to a SIP
URI, a telephone
number to dial, a web page or an e-mail address.
Enum uses DNS
NAPTR resource
records.
DNS NAPTR
resource records are documented in RFC 2915: This document describes a Domain
Name System (DNS) resource record which specifies a regular _expression_ based
rewrite rule that, when applied to an existing string, will produce a new domain
label or Uniform Resource Identifier (URI). [?] This allows the DNS to be
used to lookup services for a wide variety of resource names (including URIs)
which are not in domain name syntax. Reasons for doing this range from
URN Resource Discovery Systems to moving out-of-date services to new
domains.
Unless
stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England
and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour,
Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU