[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: AW: [bdx] Proposal for a TC recharter
Regarding emphasis on the lightweightedness of the infrastructure you seem primarily to be referring to the discovery process. I could easily agree to give DNS-based discovery (SML/SMP) precedence over competing technologies such as UDDI and ebXML RegRep. (The e-CODEX project and what we call the ?e-Delivery task force? are particularly interested in how to use SML / SMP with ebMS.) That does however not necessarily exclude examining these other technologies altogether. As the draft charter says, in some cases different approaches can be taken into account and even profiled, as a set of base technologies to choose from. Among the people who created the draft charter there seemed to be a consensus that the requirements of the LSPs should inform prioritizing the work, and in fact e-CODEX ? requirements are in many ways similar to those of PEPPOL.
It will indeed be necessary to discuss priorities and, as others have mentioned, also timetables, but that is something that all TC members will have to agree upon, and being the newbie in this group I will certainly not presume to take a prominent role in that. I do however offer to take a share in the work.
With the change of wording you proposed, I see no particular problem.
Looking forward to working with you in the TC
IT. NRW, Ref. 312
Thank you for this clarification Susanne. I am very exited about the prospect of getting new resources into the TC. I have re-read the proposed charter multiple times and I can see where you are coming from and that you really intend to make the TC very operational.
Von: Mikkel Hippe Brun [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Gesendet: Freitag, 2. März 2012 10:04
An: Wigard, Susanne (IT.NRW)
Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Betreff: Re: [bdx] Proposal for a TC recharterThe only thing I miss from the old charter is the emphasis on the resulting infrastructure in itself being lightweight. It also follows from the infrastructure being federated, but the critical part is that any centralized infrastructure components have as little footprint as possible. The more we can piggybag on existing infrastructure the better. Such a framing would also scope discussions about service discovery and addressing specifications like UDDI and ebXML RegRep.I would then sugges the following change to the proposed charter:Original:The purpose of the TC is therefore to define the specifications of a federated messaging and trust infrastructure for data exchange and web services interoperability between domains.Proposed:The purpose of the TC is therefore to define the specifications of a lightweight and federated messaging and trust infrastructure for reliable data exchange between domains.I have taken out the "web services interoperability" because this is covered by other OASIS TC's and I dont think that we should limit ourselvs to web services (in the classical sence). The old charter mentioned "messaging service standards" and I think this term covers the intention better.All the bestMikkel
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:01 PM, <Susanne.Wigard@it.nrw.de> wrote:
Dear all,First let me apologize for failing to join the telco. I'll have more comments when I get to see the minutes - for now let me just emphasize that indeed the intention of broadening the scope goes anlong with the goal to add resources to the TC, in particular from the LSP project that I'm working with, e-CODEX, and connected to activities in the context of creating a common transport infrastructure for the ongoing and future LSPs. So it's not about disreagrding the PEPPOL work, but quite to the contrary about continuning it into new projects and domains.RegardsSusanne____________________________________
Von: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Im Auftrag von Mikkel Hippe Brun
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. März 2012 22:28
An: Kenneth Bengtsson
Cc: Tim McGrath; email@example.com; Jens Jakob Andersen
Betreff: Re: [bdx] Proposal for a TC recharterThank you for the clarification Kenneth. This sounds very good and I look forward to the continued discussion and the next meeting.
Regards / HilsenMikkelCell: +45 31189102Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Den 01/03/2012 kl. 21.40 skrev Kenneth Bengtsson <email@example.com>:Dear Tim and MikkelI agree with your comments, and it was as such also the intention with the proposed charter to reflect these viewpoints. I'm sure the wording can be improved:In the statement of purpose it says that TC specifications should be..."...wherever and to the extent possible, based on profiles of existing standards from OASIS and elsewhere that are widely-used and proven, or otherwise seen to be generally applicable.".The intended meaning of this is, exactly as both of you commented: To focus on technologies that already exist and can be put into immediate use in the work of the TC.Also in the statement of purpose:"In certain areas the work will therefore initially be centered on the work of these LSPs (notably on SMLP around identity and service discovery, addressing and profiling), and will also consider other approaches and related specifications (e.g. DNS, ebXML CPA, UDDI, ebXML RegRep, WS-Discovery)...".The intended meaning here is to say: We will leverage the work already done by PEPPOL and other LSPs - this is our starting point. However, if along the way we accept specific requirements or if we see that our work can benefit from it, then we shouldn't by default disregard other technologies. We have a solid starting point with the work already produced by the LSPs and it is from there that we progress. However we shouldn't progress wearing blinkers.In the scope of work is specifically mentioned that the specifications from PEPPOL (namely SML, SMP, START and LIME) will have their home in the TC. The SML/SMP technology are the foundation for discovery, whereas START and LIME may have more PEPPOL-specific uses. I'd like to stress again that it is not the intention to disregard the work already produced.I'm sure that the wordings in the proposed charter can be improved to better reflect the intended meaning. There is no pride in ownership, so please feel free to make all the suggestions for improvement that you like! At yesterday's meeting we agreed to postpone the vote for the recharter until March 14 to allow for comments and specific proposals.With regards to the "speed with which the TC can work": Mike made the comment yesterday that broadening the scope of the TC means that more work has to be produced, and that adding more resources is by no means a guarantee that work will progress any faster. This is a valid comment and it is in most cases true. However, in our specific case it is a specific objective with the recharter to make the TC a platform for producing specifications for an ongoing convergence of the LSPs respective eDelivery technologies. A widening of the scope will therefore enable the LSPs to add resources to the TC and to take a leading role. As the LSPs are also working with milestones and deadlines I do in fact believe that the proposed recharter will make the TC gain momentum rather than loosing it.Joao volunteered yesterday to make a suggestion to the proposed charter for clarifying/underlining the role and significance of the LSPs (and the LSP convergence process) in the TC.Best regards,KennethFrom: Tim McGrath <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:49:15 +0800
To: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Mikkel Hippe Brun <email@example.com>, Kenneth Bengtsson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Jens Jakob Andersen <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [bdx] Proposal for a TC recharterI 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:
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.
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.
On 2/20/12 8:15 AM, "Jens Jakob Andersen" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>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
>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.
>Fra: Kenneth Bengtsson [mailto:email@example.com]
>Sendt: 13. februar 2012 15:58
>Til: Jens Jakob Andersen; Tim McGrath
>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
>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
>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.
>On 2/13/12 9:44 AM, "Jens Jakob Andersen" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>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".
>>Fra: Tim McGrath [mailto:email@example.com]
>>Sendt: 13. februar 2012 11:22
>>Til: Jens Jakob Andersen
>>Cc: Kenneth Bengtsson; firstname.lastname@example.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
Mikkel Hippe Brun
Chief Strategy Officer, Cofounder
Voice: +45 3118 9102
Twitter: @hippebrun @tradeshift
-- INVOICING HAS NEVER BEEN EASIER --
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]