Re: [ebxml-msg] Updated requirements list for your perusal

[Matthew MacKenzie <matt@xmlglobal.com>]

My preference is to keep compression in application land, and I would really rather not have encapsulation in the specification.

-Matt


On Friday, October 25, 2002, at 04:58  PM, Cliff Collins wrote:

> I would like to see #7 not pushed to "NO".
>  
> Maybe I missed discussion on this but I think it is valuable and should be included in an optional section. It's a method that already has at least 3 implementers from the last round of Drummond testing.
>  
> In addition, I think the encapsulation model should be examined for doing compression (#26). This allows for shrinking the message at the MSH level. Doing things to payloads directly has the same problem SMIME had in MS 2.0. It's unclear whether the BP or the MSH should "undo" the operation when the message is received. Encapsulation also allows for compression and SMIME to be done on the same message and it results in some very nice performance improvements.
>  
> Cliff
>
>  
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Bunting [mailto:db134722@iplanet.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 4:28 PM
> To: Jones, Ian
> Cc: ebXML Messaging
> Subject: [ebxml-msg] Updated requirements list for your perusal
>
> ebXML Requirements List 10 October 2002
>
> The following table contains all the requirements currently identified for future releases of the ebXML Messaging Service
>
> Requirements List
<image.tiff>
>