Re: Use cases for IM's

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

My previous posting pointed out reasons why the mailroom node isn't just a
dumb forwarder.  In addition, if I were a market place, I would want to
charge for that forwarding function and my charges might depend on the
nature of the messages, their destinations, etc.  I don't presume to know
C1's business model, of course, but I still suspect that that mailroom node
might have a more elaborate business process than I first thought.  I am
beginning to believe that there are no dumb intermediaries except possibly
for IP routers.

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 09/13/2001 02:11:40 PM

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

To:   david.burdett@commerceone.com
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.

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