I think with both Pete
and Sander missing it is better to defer. Maybe we can use an ebcore slot next
week, at least in part? Because the semantic agreement support was the main (or
only) ebcore issue.
Dale
From: Pim van
der Eijk [mailto:pvde@sonnenglanz.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 6:16
AM
To:
ebcore-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ebcore-cppa] ebCore-CPPA SC call
tomorrow
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
!?
Pim
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.
Pim
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.
<RelatedChannels>
<ChannelId
type=http://docs.oasis-open.org/ebxml-msg/ebms/v3.0/ns/core/200704/Receipt>dc.Default.Sync</ChannelId>
</RelatedChannels>
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).
Regards,
Sander
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.
Hello,
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.
Thanks,
Pim
-----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
Hello,
Since I wrote the minutes for the
CPP/CPA call I learned
that I will be travelling on Friday, so I am
cancelling the
call.
In the mean time, your review of the proposed changes
and
any comments to the list are
welcome.
Thanks,
Pim
-----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.
Pim
-----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
Hello,
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.
Pim
-----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
Hello,
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.
Pim
-----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
SimplePart/NamespaceAssociate/@location
Is there something or a
way like this?
What do you think about it?
Best
Regards
------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
Cristiano
Novelli
ENEA, SIC - UDA - PMI
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
both
> quality of service (security,
reliability) that applies
"end-to-end" and
> settings that are
different from hop to hop. The
transport
> <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
same
> agreement.
>
>
A simple option is to make @transportId in
<DeliveryChannel>
>
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
address
> "user@domain". The sender
has its private settings for
SMTP and
> recipient for IMAP/POP3
servers, and both can reconfigure
them
> 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
information
> 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
the
> end-to-end agreements can be merged to generate
a classic,
complete
> CPA. But that "CPA" could be different for sender
and
recipient,
> 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
<Transport>
> elements in the CPA are already
different.
>
> (Note: this mapping from channels or messages to
"local"
transport
> configurations is like the unspecified "routing
function"
that
> intermediaries must implement. See an earlier proposal
in
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-cppa/200811/msg00
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
(end-to-end)
> security and reliability.
The <DocExchange> element should
contain
> information that
expresses whether the exhange is
point-to-point
> (default) or
multihop. If multihop, we could use some
defined
> 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:
pull
> 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
more
> 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
and
> 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.
(Section
> 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
server
> 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
reference
> @initiatingSignalChannel from
the business message
<DeliveryChannel>
> 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
reliable:
> end-to-end retransmission; authorisation with
intermediary
locally.
> - 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
authorisation
> 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
CanReceives.
> These are
associated with one or more DeliveryChannels.
In CPP
> 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
and
> 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
<DeliveryChannel>
> elements) to
express this. CPP intersection is must
simpler.
>
> 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
that
> 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
OASIS
at:
>
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_work
groups.php
>
------------------------------------------------------------
---------
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:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_work
groups.php
------------------------------------------------------------
---------
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:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_work
groups.php
------------------------------------------------------------
---------
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:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_work
groups.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php