[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Public Comment
Comment from: email@example.com Name: Yangsun Park Organization: KorBIT Regarding Specification: Public Review Draft 1 ebMS3.0 ebMS 3.0 is seem to get more flexibility to adopt other existing specifications than ebMS 2.0 specification. I understand P-Mode is on the context. MEP and MPF give basic view for connect messaging to business scenario and give solution for some technical problem. I give you brief comments on new concepts in ebMS 3.0, pulling, MEP, MPF, P-Mode. I agree with that “pulling” is very useful for small businesses to operate ebMS endpoint especially under condition of dynamic IP addresses. But, some implementation issues are concerned. The system may not handle the workload of pulling when messaging with many business partners or processing lots of messages. (This is out of the scope of this specification, but I think it’s worth to consider.) In the specification, there’s no mention how to manage the pulling; how the system manages the messages when messages are already sent to MSH and the pulling request is delayed with known reason. For using MEP, the agreements between partners should be described in CPA, but there’s nothing mentioned on the spec about it. It is recommended to suggest how business partners can use the MEP or to reference CPA specification at least. In case of MPF, it is also needed to consider how to handle the unexpected situations. If using queue to implement the MPF system, there can happen problem when several business partners pull message from same MPF queue. P-Mode is related to the implementation issues, but the configuration information seems to affect the business scenario. It seems to be natural the p-mode is integrated to the CPA. The fact sheet is represented very well, and I think that it will be easier to understand if you mention the MEPs used in the specifications.