[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: Draft of Requirements for Intermediary Support for discussion.
Some comments embedded below. 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 ************************************************************************************* Dale Moberg <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com> on 08/02/2001 04:10:15 PM To: ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org cc: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com> Subject: RE: Draft of Requirements for Intermediary Support for discussion. DavidBurdett> >> Here is my first cut of the requirements for CPPA that are needed to support >> intermediaries. It suggests the development of several >> different types of CPA/CPP ... Before getting into the details of your proposed new partitioning of information, I am interested in understanding the need for new functionality. Let me start with an intermediary that serves to re-send ebXML messages. A minimalist intermediary could be represented within a CPA by the Endpoint elements within the Transports used by two participants in a collaboration. In other words, for A to send to B via C, A would look at the Endpoint URL for B, and find http://intermediary.net/pathForMsgRouter while B would find the Endpoint URL for A, which perhaps is the same, http://intermediary.net/pathForMsgRouter. MWS: If we use this approach, we need some words of explanation in the spec covering the intermediary case. In this case, the URL needed by the intermediary to forward its arriving messages would occur nowhere in the CPA of the two participants. It would be privately maintained in the intermediary's "routing table." This is the current state of "support" for intermediaries, and it is admittedly very meagre and really abstracts an intermediary down to the URL Endpoints it presents to the non-intermediary participants.(I recall that the above is basically how the POC handled CPAs for scenarios involving "hubs") MWS: The intermediary's routing table could be populated using CPAs between individual parties and the intermediary or it could be populated by private means defined by the intermediary. I believe that there have been discussions of the CPA option over the past year or so. Given that the CPA is to provide some configuration information needed by MSHes, one step beyond what we now have would be to consider how the CPP and CPAs could be extended to support participants using the Via element within ebXML messages. In other words, we could add something to transport Endpoint notation so that the participants would be able to populate the Via field in their messages that they send. MWS: Sounds like a good idea. Beyond this, we could begin to explicitly represent the intermediary as a participant, along with the other parties. To do so, we first could consider the representations within the BPSS for a BP involving an intermediary. Will the BPSS for an intermediary be a multiparty BPSS or will it in fact be the same as for the 2 party case? In other words, does the presence of the intermediary make the BP a different business process somehow? If so, how? If not, why not? Presumably the Request and Response documents will stay the same. Will any other aspects of the message change-- packaging, signals, security parameters, and so on? If none of these elements are modified, is it then safe to assume that the presence of an intermediary does not make any difference for the BPSS? MWS: I believe that the existing BPSS can handle the intermediary case using the coupled binary collaboration approach that it uses for multiparty. I suspect that the main impact of having an intermediary will be on the reliable messaging apparatus, possibly some impact on security (though this has possibly been confined and dealt with under the XPath transforms used for signing messages), and possibly some impact on the synch and asynch modes. Are there other impact points when an intermediary is present in the process? These specifics need to be inventoried first, IMO, before we launch off with new flavors of CPPs and CPAs. MWS: Absolutely, we need to start with a detailed requirements analysis of the intermediary case. For the most part, it seems to be that your requirements jump straight to some proposed solutions, while I had hoped to have requirements, use cases, special situations, and related information that would help us understand the problem better. Then we can consider potential solutions, and evaluate their comparative strengths. We do now have more time to analyze whether to assimilate the intermediary CPA to be a special case of multiparty, or to rather add intermediaries in through special modifications or qualifications under transport, packaging, synch/asynch, and so on.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC