RE: pending issues

Please take the draft Hamid posted as just a consolidation of current proposals to current issues on the table (some proposals were easier to review in the form of their final effect on the spec draft). So these still need be reviewed. The proposal for Security section reduction (Hamid) is issue #10 and I recall that there was an informal agreement on the need to do some updates in that direction - though no detailed proposal was made yet. So here it is to discuss... (and apparently to modify).

Please see the current list of issues as appended at the end of this email.

Some have full proposal embedded. Wherever the proposal is defined (Hamid's draft or issue list), we need to discuss and get closure on several of these, and some review effort is needed by the TC. - and not just during conf calls !

Thanks,

Jacques

From: Dale Moberg [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 8:22 PM
To: Ric Emery
Cc: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Groups - No more pending issues

From: Ric Emery [mailto:remery@cyclonecommerce.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 1:44 PM
To: Hamid Ben Malek
Cc: Jacques Durand; Sacha Schlegel; Dale Moberg; 'ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] Groups - No more pending issues

Dale and I have a concern that the Security Section was, for the most part, removed from the spec. We spoke with Jacques about this last week on the conference call. I was trying to profile WSS down, to show how signing and encryption should be done for ebMS.
We both feel that the ebMS spec should state prescribed ways to sign and encrypt messages. Then state something to the effect that other WSS compliant mechanisms can be utilized. But are left outside of the scope of the ebMS spec, and support is not required.

Only stating that ebMS can utilize WSS is not going to be enough to ensure interoperability.

Remiaining proposed and agreed updates on latest WD 0.8: (Feb 15)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

5) Subsubsection 5.1.3 (ebXML SOAP Envelope Extension ) should be

moved to 5.1.4, and a new subsubsection 5.1.3 should be added having

the title Example.

STATUS: Agreed that a complete example be provided in its own section.

Some disagreement as to placement of Example section. Some feel it

should be first; others would like the normative specification text

first with example following.

EDIT: Just need detailed proposal

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

6) In examples, the element eb:Partref still contains the attributes:

(and Partref to be renamed PartInfo I believe)

5.a- eb:id : agreed to remove (replaced by XML Id)

5.b- eb:idref. Use instead "href" (a SOAP standard attribute).

STATUS: agreed.

EDIT: Just need detailed proposal (see SOAP 1.2 appendix which uses it)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

7) remove sections related to SOAP actors:

In Part 1:

- Remove sections 5.1.3.8 , 5.1.3.9, 5.1.3.10 about SOAP actors & mustUnderstand,

as the related topologies that such actors

support are relevant to Part 2. (see proposed changes for Section 3 below)

In Part II:

- introduce the additional topologies that are handled.

- address the routing issue for MEPs in a more generic way, and add SOAP actors as needed.

STATUS: agreed. Issue 8 takes care of scoping Part 1 to remove needs

for handling intermediaries.

EDIT: TO DO (Part 1)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

8) Remodeling of Section 3:

8.a- Remove 3.4 and in Section 1 Intro (1.2 "Scope") add:

"Features defined in Part 1 only support the point-to-point MSH topology,

where no MSH or SOAP intermediary is assumed.

Part 2 takes into account topologies with intermediaries, hub or multi-hop, as well

as topologies where the ultimate MSH acts as a SOAP intermediary."

8.b- move section 3.3 "Message Service Processing Model" at the end of

Section 2 (Messaging Model), replace title as "Messaging Service Processing Model"

or "MSH Processing Model".

8.c- Replaces what is left of Section 3 (3.1 + 3.2) with proposal posted.

8.d- Section 3 should then be renamed "Processing Modes"

STATUS: Proposal has already been discussed and reviewed, no overall objection.

EDIT: Ready for inclusion review draft.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

9) @soapresp attribute:

STATUS: Agreed to remove. (references to it still in from 2.2.3.1 and 2.2.3.3)

EDIT: TO DO

------------------------------------------------------------------

10) Security:

- too many examples that may not add value, redundant with WSS examples?

- Ric notes that the security examples are incorrect, where the references

are supposed to be to the SOAP Body, but instead contain a cid:xxx.

STATUS: Agreed in general. Needs detailed proposal.

EDIT:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

11)

reliability of "Internal" Service/Action (such as msg:service/Ping):

Last bullet item in 8.2.2:

Relax the requirement:

"... For example, in the case of At-Least-Once delivery, the MSH must

ensure that if a message that has been submitted (Submit) fails before RM-Submit is invoked,

then the user layer (Producer) gets a notification of failure (Notify invocation), as would be the

case if the message processing failed just after RM-Submit was invoked. Similarly, if a message

fails to be delivered on receiver side (Deliver) even after RM-Deliver has been successfully

invoked, then a notification to the Consumer must occur on the receiver side (Notify)."

as:

"...For example, in the case of At-Least-Once delivery, the MSH must

ensure that if a message that has been submitted (Submit) fails before RM-Submit is invoked,

then a delivery failure Error is generated, as would be the

case if the message processing failed just after RM-Submit was invoked. Similarly, if a message

fails to be delivered on receiver side (Deliver) even after RM-Deliver has been successfully

invoked, then a delivery failure Error must be generated.

The reporting of these errors obeys the P-Mode.errorHandling."

At the end of 8.2.2 (Reliability section) add:

"Messages that have eb:CollaborationInfo/eb:Service set to "urn:oasis:names:tc:ebxml-msg:service"

are not intended to be delivered (Deliver) to an MSH Consumer, although they may be submitted by

an MSH Producer. They are intended for internal MSH consumption.

They may also be subject to reliability contracts. In this case, the at-least-once contract

is fulfilled

with a successful RM-delivery. In case of at-least-once delivery, a failure do deliver must cause the

generation of a delivery failure Error. If this message was

submitted or initiated by an MSH Producer (Submit) instead of the MSH itself (e.g. a Ping initiated by

the Producer), the Producer may be notified (Notify)

of the failure depending on the reporting mode, as for regular user messages."

Also, in 8.1, L2822, replace "may be subject" with "is subject".

STATUS: Correction by author.

EDIT: Ready for inclusion review draft.

----------------------------- Error section: ---------------------

12)

- Add 1 error EBMS:0010 "ProcessingModeMismatch", severity: failure, category: Processing

"the ebMS header is not compatible with expected content based on the associated P-Mode."

- in Reliability errors, Add 1 error EBMS:0201 "DysfunctionalReliability"

severity: failure, category: Processing

"some reliability function as implemented by the Reliability module, is not operational,

or the reliability state associated with this message sequence is not valid."

- renumber the error code for "DeliveryFailure"as: EBMS:0202 (instad of 0010)

- renumber the error code for "Failed Authentication" as: EBMS:0101 (instad of 0011)

STATUS: Correction by author. Renumbering is editorial. The new errors are to be discussed.

EDIT:

------------------------------------------------------------------

13)

Section 2.2.2.1:

reword:

The response message, in case a two-way underlying protocol is used:

(a) may contain a SOAP envelope with a SOAP body that is always empty, in which case the One-way MEP

is qualified as "composable".

(b) may contain a SOAP envelope with a SOAP body that is either empty or contains a SOAP Fault.

In that case the MEP is qualified as "fault supporting" in addition to being composable.

STATUS: Correction by author.

EDIT: Ready for inclusion review draft.

------------------------------------------------------------------

14)

Section 4.1:

reword as:

"...ways with another MSH, engaging in a client-server type of interaction with

the remote MSH, without any need to open a port to incoming requests. This MEP also

supports exchanges with a partner that is intermittently connected: instead of periodically

polling for partner presence, a sending MSH will simply wait for the partner MSH to pull

messages."

Example: A mobile, occasionally connected device without static IP address and with

limited storage capability

can only initiate requests and receive messages as synchronous responses to these.

The One-way Pull MEP allows this device to enable and control the flow of received messages,

and to adjust it to its own resources.

L752:

"...without a need to transfer filter expressions. " --> "...without a need to transfer and

process filter expressions. "

STATUS: Correction by author.

EDIT: Ready for inclusion review draft.

-------------------- Operation COntext --> P-Mode ----------------

15)

Section 2.4.3:

"...This is done by sharing the message pipes operation context (see OpCtx_MessagePipes in Section 3)."

replace with:

"...This is done by sharing the message pipes processing mode feature

(see P-Mode.messagePipes in Section 3)."

Section 5.2.9:

"... AgreementRef is a string value that identifies the operation context that governs the exchange.

The

recipient of a message MUST be able to resolve the AgreementRef to this operation context, or to the

related agreement between the Sending and Receiving parties."

replace with:

"... AgreementRef is a string value that identifies the agreement that governs the exchange.

The P-Mode under which

the MSH operates for this message MUST be aligned with this agreement."

Section 7:

"... Error generation and error reporting are treated here as orthogonal concepts. Some aspects of error

handling - in particular, reporting - are best specified within the operation context for error handling

(OpCtx-ErrorHandling) e.g. as resulting from an agreement."

replace with:

"... Error generation and error reporting are treated here as orthogonal concepts. While the generation of errors

is a matter of conformance, the reporting of errors may be subject to an agreement. Consequently, the way errors

are to be reported is specified in the P-Mode (P-Mode.errorHandling feature) that results from such an agreement."

Section 7.5:

"... Except for some cases defined in this specification, Error escalation policies are left to an

agreement between users, represented in the operation context of an MSH ( OpCtx-ErrorHandling)."

replace with:

"... Except for some cases defined in this specification, Error escalation policies are left to an

agreement between users, represented in the processing mode of an MSH ( P-Mode.errorHandling )."

Section 7.7.1:

EBMS:0003 : replace operationn context with "processing mode"

Section 8.1 (end):

"... Note that depending on the reliability operation

context (OpCtx-Reliability), notification of delivery failure may be detected on either side."

replace with:

"... Note that depending on the reliability processing mode (P-Mode.reliability), awareness of

delivery failure may occur on either side."

STATUS: Editorial effect of replacing Section 3. Follows from agreement on (8)

EDIT: Ready for inclusion review draft

------------------------- ----------------

16)

Section 10 "Reliability Protocol Bindings"

Replace:

"It is not the intent of ebMS to open too many options, but the case of reliability is

a particular one, as each one of the two OASIS reliability specifications has strong arguments

in its favor."

with:

"Although either one of the above OASIS reliability specifications is sufficient,

each one has strong arguments in favor of its use."

In 10.1.3: in the table:

".. two additional requirements MUST be satisfied"

only the two first bullets apply, bullet 3 should not be part of this sublist.

In 10.1.4: in the table:

".. two additional requirements MUST be satisfied"

The two conditions should be singled out , e.g. with dashes or bullets.

STATUS: Correction by author.

EDIT: Ready for inclusion review draft.

---------------------------------------------

17)

Insert COnformance Appendix, latest update (Feb 14).

STATUS: 3rd iteration, latest updates to be discussed.

EDIT: Ready for inclusion review draft.

---------------------------------------------

18)

Insert SOAP 1.2 binding Appendix.

Remove previous Appendix 11.

STATUS: SOAP 1.2 latest agreed. Appendix 11 removal to be discussed / confirmed.

no general objection.

EDIT: ?

---------------------------------------------

19)

Security Module (Section 6.3)

security of attachments WSS1.0 vs WSS 1.1

STATUS: Proposal to handle this by a new COnformance profile (Level 2) in Part1. Linked to Issue 17.

EDIT: Need to describe both WSS 1.0 and WSS 1.1 + WSS-SWA options.

---------------------------------------------

20)

Update the packaging figures Section 5 (fig 7 and 8)

- remove StatusRequest / Response signals.

STATUS: Need concrete proposal

EDIT:

------------------------------------------

21) Section 10.2.1:

WS-RM binding: should specify that:

- RM QoS applies to an entire sequence, and is communicated in the CS extension point.

(need to decide of a format for interoperability ! propose a default, can be override in P-Mode ?)

STATUS: Need discussion, concrete proposal

-------------------------------------------

22) Pipe IDs do not allow for use by more than 2 MSHs. Use cases like:

(1) Many Sending MSHs to the same Receiving MSH: a Receiving MSH publishing one "pipe name" to be

shared by several authorized senders possibly unknown yet. The intent is of partitioning the inflow of messages on

receiving side, based on their business nature, not their source. The pipe name is currently presented as a unique identifier

for pipes, to be used only between 1 pair of MSHs.

(2) One Sending MSH to several Receiving MSHs: There are cases where one may want more than one Receiving MSH

to pull from the same Sending MSH and on the same pipe name. Cases include: (a) some failover case (first Receiving MSH fails)

where the sender does not have to be updated to switch, (b) joint and indiscriminate processing of the same pool of messages

by two equivalent but distant applications (e.g. trouble tickets handlers).

Also current pipe definition is too dependent on URLs, while this is not needed.

STATUS: to discuss.

EDIT: rewording in the pipe section and definitions.

ebxml-msg message