OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebcore-cppa message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [ebcore-cppa] ebCore-CPPA SC call tomorrow

Title: Re: [ebcore-cppa] ebCore-CPPA SC call tomorrow

I may have time tomorrow morning to review


Was travelling all week




From: Sander Fieten [mailto:sander@fieten-it.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 3:55 PM
To: Pim Eijk, van der; ebcore-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ebcore-cppa] ebCore-CPPA SC call tomorrow


I can attend but didn’t have time to review any material.


On 22/04/2010 15:15, "Pim Eijk, van der" <pvde@sonnenglanz.net> wrote:

Reminder that we have a call scheduled for tomorrow.   Please let me know if you can attend and will be able to review the materials out there.

Notes from our previous meeting:  

We reviewed the document comparing "old" and "proposed new" ways of specifying related channels.
One discussion item was the use of ebBP signals.   In ebMS 2.0 and 3.0, these signals map to UserMessages, so they are defined messages with action bindings in the CPA.  We could add special links to link the business messages and the related ebBP signals.    A BSI library could use this information since for a message it should be able to process multiple response messages (having RefToMessageId set to the MessageId of the sent message), one business response and ReceiptAcknowdlegment, AcceptanceAcknowledgement etc. messages.   I believe Dale agreed to look into this !?



From: Pim van der Eijk [mailto:pvde@sonnenglanz.net]
Sent: 08 April 2010 19:36
To: 'Pim van der Eijk'; ebcore-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ebcore-cppa] ebCore-CPPA SC call tomorrow

Usual reminder.   I hope to produce some notes outlining and comparing "old" and "proposed new" ways of doing synchronous replies, pull mode, setting channels for various types of signals.  In the mean time, the examples and notes I posted before give some background.



From: Pim van der Eijk [mailto:pvde@sonnenglanz.net]
Sent: 26 March 2010 09:24
To: 'ebcore-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: ebCore-CPPA SC call today


A reminder about the call today.  Same agenda as for the proposed earlier, cancelled meeting.

Note that the time for the call is 20:00 CET.  CET, unlike other timezone, is not yet in DST so the meeting time may be an hour different from previous meetings if you are in other timezones.


From: Pim van der Eijk [mailto:pvde@sonnenglanz.net]
Sent: 12 March 2010 15:32
To: 'Sander Fieten'; 'Moberg Dale'; 'ebcore-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: RE: [ebcore-cppa] Reminder: ebCore-CPPA SC call tomorrow.

OK, then I see little reason to have a call and suggest we postpone.  

In the proposal, a delivery channel can include a specification of its related channels, where the type attribute identifies what kind of message is sent over that channel.  E.g. the following associates the ebMS 3.0 Receipt with a channel called dc.Default.Sync.   
That channel can have an @addresId attribute that points to an addres group elsewhere in the CPA that can include WS Addressing reference parameter information.   




From: Sander Fieten [mailto:sander@fieten-it.com]
Sent: 12 March 2010 14:58
To: Moberg Dale; Pim Eijk, van der; ebcore-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ebcore-cppa] Reminder: ebCore-CPPA SC call tomorrow.

I won’t be able to join todays call. Our cat probably broke his tail, so will have to go to the vet with him.

I think we have to decide and discuss whether we want CPA’s for endpoint to intermediary traffic or only for end-2-end exchanges. On the structure of the CPA I was thinking that we can also define specific ActionBinding for signals. They can then be bound to their own channel (with the required WS-A config).


On 11/03/2010 21:49, "Moberg Dale" <dmoberg@axway.com> wrote:

I am on vacation this week but could dial in to  receive a status report.

Reviewing pending materials will be difficult  because I have only worked
with Kathryn on how to obtain requirement input  related to Christiano
N's general issue.

I have tried to organize  obtaining some sample of what would be needed
to support "semantic  alignment agreements" on data.

Beyond that I have not looked at the  scope of rework needed using your
RelatedChannels this  week.

-----Original Message-----
From: Pim van der Eijk [mailto:pvde@sonnenglanz.net]
Sent:  Thursday, March 11, 2010 3:04 AM
To: ebcore-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:  [ebcore-cppa] Reminder: ebCore-CPPA SC call  tomorrow.


A reminder that we will have a call  tomorrow.   If you can't
make it, please let me know.
If you  can, please review the materials that have been
posted so  far.



-----Original Message-----
From: Pim  van der Eijk [mailto:pvde@sonnenglanz.net]
Sent:  22 February 2010 22:06
To: 'ebcore-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject:  No call on 2010-02-26


Since I wrote the minutes for  the CPP/CPA call I learned
that I will be travelling on Friday, so I am  cancelling the
In the mean time, your review of the proposed  changes and
any comments to the list are  welcome.



-----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.


-----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


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.


-----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


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.


-----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

Is there something or a  way like this?
What do you think about it?

Best  Regards

Cristiano  Novelli
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
> quality of service (security, reliability) that  applies
"end-to-end" and
> settings that are different from hop to  hop.  The
> <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
> agreement.
> A simple  option is to make @transportId in
> 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
> "user@domain". The sender  has its private settings for
SMTP and
> recipient for IMAP/POP3  servers, and both can reconfigure
> 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
> 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
> end-to-end  agreements can be merged to generate a classic,
> CPA. But  that "CPA" could be different for sender and
> 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
> elements  in the CPA are already different.
> (Note: this mapping from  channels or messages to "local"
> configurations is like  the unspecified "routing function"
> intermediaries must  implement. See an earlier proposal in
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
> security and  reliability. The <DocExchange> element should
>  information that expresses whether the exhange is
>  (default) or multihop.  If multihop, we could use some
>  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:
> 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
> 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
>  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.
> 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
> 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
> @initiatingSignalChannel from the business  message
> 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
> end-to-end retransmission; authorisation with  intermediary
> - 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
> 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
> These are associated with one or more  DeliveryChannels.
> 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
> 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
> elements)  to express this. CPP intersection is must
> 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
> 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

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]