[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] RE: The Return Path Problem
In my mind, the topic of your paper is closely related to the questions I've been asking about "how do you name an MSH" or "how do you name a party". I think there has been some confusion about what we mean by a "party": is "ABC Co" is a party, or is "Order Management MSH" a party? Marty seemed to be suggesting the latter, to which I replied that then a "partyId" would not be an identifier of a "party". It looks to me like you're assuming: -- ABC Co. is one "party". Order Management MSH is not a "party". -- A "party" is identified by a "partyId" (i.e. each partyId denotes one specific "party". -- There is one CPA, between the "parties", so there isn't a separate CPA for the different paths shown in your figure 1-1. In your paper, you suggest using the Service and Action fields in order to figure out how to route the message. It seems to me that there is a tacit assumption behind this suggestion, which I think needs to be made explicit. It assumes that you never have two distinct MSH's within one "party" that both implement the same Service/Action. Is this really a safe assumption? If a "party" might be a large corporation, the corporation could have many divisions, each of which provides the service "Purchasing" with the action "Submit PO". It seems to me that Service & Action are an assertion about *what* to do, not *who* is doing it. For routing, we want to use "who-like" information.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC