Re: [ebxml-iic] ebMS Deployment Guide Template 24 Feb

[Matthew MacKenzie <matt@mac-kenzie.net>]

I think I raised some fundamental issues, some more important than 
others.  I wouldn't feel comfortable voting yes if the issues with the 
deployment template dealing with items that already have definitive 
coverage in the ebMS spec aren't addressed.

A deployment template that allows implementers to define things that go 
against the specification in question is Not A Good Thing.

-Matt



Jacques Durand wrote:

> Thanks Matt for quick comments.
> I will issue the call for vote tonight, 6pm PT,
> once we have the latest of the two other specs.
> so Pete, if you see anything critical here you can still update
> today.
>
> Otherwise, we will keep a list of open suggestions / comments,
> and that will be rolled-in in the next version (as I am sure
> we will get many more once the doc is out... which is also the
> objectives of not delaying a version 1.0)
>
> Regards,
>
> Jacques
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:matt@mac-kenzie.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:29 AM
> To: Pete Wenzel
> Cc: ebXML IIC
> Subject: Re: [ebxml-iic] ebMS Deployment Guide Template 24 Feb
>
>
> Pete,
>
> Good work!  Some comments, and I apologize that they didn't come sooner.
>
> General: Text should be added stating that all values are case
> sensitive.  I've been bitten by this before.
>
> 2.1.2: These questions are no really apropriate in the ebMS context. 
> Content-ID is going to be added by the MSH no matter what so that the
> Manifest can be populated, and the start attribute is a nicety to
> identify the attachment representing the SOAP envelope.
>
> 2.1.3.1 See above.
>
> 2.1.5 Be careful here.  MSHs don't have any obligation to recognize
> additional mime params.
>
> 2.2.1 I think this should be delegated to SOAP conformance, I don't see
> its bearing in a deployment template.
>
> 2.2.2 This is a conformance issue.
>
> 3.1.1.1 Recomend that the ebMS rules be allowed to govern this.  This
> just fosters a less complete treatment of the ebMS spec.  Also, type is
> required only if the value is not a URI.  This may be better dealt with
> earlier in the document where the PartyId type is defined.
>
> 3.1.3 I recomend not allowing this to be user-mutable.  Conversation ID
> generation should follow rules set out by the ebMS specification, and
> vendors should not be burdened with opening this up to user modification.
>
> 4.2.4.1 Do you expect an MSH to withold a SOAP Fault, or do you mean
> application level errors?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> Pete Wenzel wrote:
>
> > Attached is the 24 February revision of the Deployment Guide Template
> > for ebXML Message Service.  I have incorporated Jacques' latest
> > suggetions, and feel that it is now ready to be considered for
> > approval as a committee specification.
> >
> > --Pete
> > Pete Wenzel <pete@seebeyond.com>
> > SeeBeyond
> > Standards & Product Strategy
> > +1-626-471-6311 (US-Pacific)
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>