RE: [ebxml-msg] Messaging Spec v1.092

[Dale Moberg <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>]

David Burdett said:

If a problem is complex, and reliable messaging and security are
complex,
then the solution is necessarily complex. Shuffling the data from the
header
to the CPA has not made the problem go away. 

Right!

Now, tell me why the UDDI-WSDL is not "prenegotiated" (with
take-it-or-leave
it) semantics, but CPA-templates, for example, are (which also have
take-it
or-leave-it semantics). 

People who wish to make certain that the negotiation
protocol works "the right way" are encouraged to contribute to the
ebxml-cppa-negot subgroup which is in the requirements gathering stage
for a 2nd to 3rd quarter initial draft (I hope).

Also, for you SOAP fans,
if you are concerned with interoperability, 
please just explain why having a
notation for marking things
with a mustUnderstand, with a
response carrying a SOAP fault, promotes
interoperability in itself? Is this the
"right way" to do negotiation-- by a trial
and error search through the power set
of combinations of SOAP modules of interest,
until you find a combination that works and
is acceptable to you?

I hope that does not become the "paradigm" for
negotiation protocols. We would welcome your
help in making certain it does not!