Re: T2 PLEAE READ - Suggested solution to RM Issues

[Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

Dan,

I agree with your comments on the case described in your posting (below)
but it does call into question my previous posting. Consider this:

   A----B----C----D

Clearly, A and D have to communicate end to end via ebXML messaging, CPA
(virtual or real), and BPSS (virtual or real).

The problem is that there is nothing requiring that the link between B and
C be an ebXML path.  Therefore both of our previous comments that all IM
nodes must have two MSHs are not correct.  In the simplest case (dumb store
and forward only), we can consider the combination of B and C as a single
intermediary ("virtual ebXML IM") with what goes on between them an
internal matter that is outside the scope of ebXML.  It is thus even more
important that the spec clearly state its assumptions about the
intermediary functions above the level of the MSH including some words
about the case where there is a non-ebXML link in the path between two
intermediaries.

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
*************************************************************************************



Dan Weinreb <dlw@exceloncorp.com> on 09/08/2001 12:29:08 AM

Please respond to Dan Weinreb <dlw@exceloncorp.com>

To:   david.burdett@commerceone.com
cc:   chris.ferris@east.sun.com, arvola@tibco.com,
      ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:  Re: T2 PLEAE READ - Suggested solution to RM Issues



   Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 16:07:05 -0700
   From: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>

   Suppose you have three parties, A, B and C. B is an intermediary. A & B
   agree to use ebXML. B and C agree to use the BizTalk Framework (which
also
   supports reliable messaging). So you can get end-to-end reliable
messaging
   as all hops are reliable. I think your words would not allow this use
case
   because the second hop is not ebXML. How would you make this use case
work?"

I don't understand how this kind of use case works at all.  Are you
saying that A and C are conducting a business transaction with each
other, and B is acting as an intermediary, and yet A and C aren't
in any sense using the same protocol?

Is there an ebXML CPA between A and C?  Is there a BPSS that A and C
have agreed upon?  If so, I would say that A and C are both using
ebXML.  B and C might agree to use BizTalk Framework as an underlying
communications protocol; that is, they might use BizTalk Framework in
place of HTTP or SMTP.  Then they would not need to use ebXML-style
"retry if you don't get an Acknowledgment" because they have an
underlying reliable protocol.  (Ditto if they communicate using
MQSeries.)  But, C is definitely running an ebXML MSH.

Or are you sahing that A is conducting a business transaction with B,
and the business process on B is simultaneously engaging in business
processes with both A and C?  That's fine, but in that case there
isn't any concept of messages being sent from A to C or C to A; A and
C would not even know about each other.


-- Dan

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>