RE: Use cases for IM's

["Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>]

Dan

You asked ...

>>>But then why does BM [the mailroom MSH] have to be an MSH at all?<<<

Some reasons include (there are probably more):
1. The BM MSH can keep the URLs of all external Partys which B does business
with (e.g. A). This keeps all the look ups in one place which makes it
easier to maintain. Otherwise each application would have to do it on its
own.
2. It means that external businesses (e.g. Party A) can be given a single
URL to use to send messages for B, as the Mailroom MSH will forward it to
the correct application. This means that ...
3. If B re-organizes its systems internally and wants to move an application
to a different URL, then it does not need to notify the external Parties it
does business with as the external URL does not change.
4. Some of the links to an application may not use an ebXML front end at
all, for example ...

   A -------------- BM ------ B1 ------- B
  MSH              MSH       MSH        APP1
                    |
                    |-------- B2 ------- B
                    |        MSH        APP2
                    |
                     ----- Inteface ---- B
                             App        APP3

In this case, B's mailroom MSH can allow the application (APP3) to exchange
messages with the rest of the world using ebXML which it could not do if it
had to use only SMTP. A variation of this is ...
5. The link to an application is done in batch, say once a day. However
there is a need to provide an immediater response over HTTP for messages
that are received. With this configuration, B's mailroom MSH can send an
acknowledgement or even a delivery receipt immediately back to the sender
(e.g. A) and later forward the message to the application

... then you said ...

>>>Since it doesn't actually interpret the message, there's no need for it
to know the ebXML MS protocol at all.<<<

Does it NEED to know it, perhaps not. However there is often going to be a
need for some kind of internal routing of a message from one MSH to another.
You cannot just use a simple communications protocol as it menas the parties
you do business with will have to be informed all of your updates. Using a
mailroom MSH makes it much easier to do.

... and then you said ...

>>>But if it [Commerce One] is still just passing the messages through
without interpreting them, the same point holds: don't consider it to be an
MSH.<<<

If you accept the benefits of using a mailroom MSH as described above, then
all we are doing is offering to outsource the service (for a fee ;).

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Weinreb [mailto:dlw@exceloncorp.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 11:12 AM
To: Burdett, David
Cc: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: Use cases for IM's


   Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 09:07:35 -0700
   From: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>

   The very common use case which I think will apply to many businesses is
   illustrated by the following diagram originally suggested by Chris
Ferris:

   ....

   In this example the BM MSH is an intermediary, yet, I would argue, A
should
   not need to know that it is actually dealing with an intermediary. It
should
   be transparent.

But then why does BM have to be an MSH at all?  Instead, why not just
make BM an SMTP store-and-forward mailer, or the equivalent thing
using HTTP?  In other words, consider BM to be operating at the
communication layer.  Then it will really be invisible.  And nobody
will bother to worry about CPA's to which it's a party: it doesn't
have to worry about CPA's at all.  After all, you say:

					     The BM MSH does not "process"
the
   message in a business sense as it does not look at the payload.

Since it doesn't actually interpret the message, there's no need for
it to know the ebXML MS protocol at all.


   Now for Commerce One. ONE of the (many) uses for ebXML that Commerce One
has
   is illustrated by the diagram below:

      A -------------- C1 ------ D -------- D
     MSH              MSH       MSH        APP
		       |
			-------- E -------- E
				MSH        APP

   Note that, as far as use of MSH's are concerned, this is IDENTICAL to the
   previous diagram except that Commerce One is providing the mailroom
function
   rather than it being inside party B. Also links are made to many
different
   parties (i.e. D & E), not just one (i.e. B). 

But if it's still just passing the messages through without
interpreting them, the same point holds: don't consider it to be an
MSH.