RE: [ebxml-msg] SOAP 1.2 MTOM and ebMS v3

["David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Pim,

 

Yes - there are two parts to this - ebMS and Registry - as you note.

 

The IHE folks are moving to adopt v3.0 registry and ebMS - so that is good.

 

I don't think we need a native SMTP interface for registry - that use case turned out to be weakly used - because people already have SMTP servers and they just use those directly if they need to via their platform/language tools.

 

I do believe though that a simple request/response ebMS interface for registry would be useful - especially for federated queries - to compliment the Web service one.

 

This would also address your concerns about security and access - et al - because those profiles the registry can keep itself using XUA, SAML and so on - separate to the messaging transport.  And IHE/XDS are already doing that - creating use cases for XUA, SAML and those profiles.

 

For direct CRUD access - I believe the REST interface is the most likely choice for people - for UI interfacing - so again that simplifies the access model and security by limiting the use case there.

 

So I agree that providing v3.0 ebMS push/pull would be useful in support of registry. Also - S2S alerting and notification messages based on triggers inside registry (non-SMTP). 

 

Easiest way to do that would be to publish a non-normative note on V3 ebMS and registry use profiles?

 

DW

"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] SOAP 1.2 MTOM and ebMS v3
From: "Pim van der Eijk" <pim.vandereijk@oasis-open.org>
Date: Thu, April 05, 2007 4:01 pm
To: "'David RR Webber (XML)'" <david@drrw.info>, "'Ric Emery'"
<remery@us.axway.com>
Cc: <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>, <ian.c.jones@bt.com>

 

Perhaps this issue should be raised in the Registry TC instead of Messaging? As far as I know there was an ebXML Messaging SMTP interface to ebXML Registry v2.0 and some interest to upgrade this to v3.0 from IHE, but did this ever happen?  Is the request about upgrading the simple SOAP interface to use MTOM?   But then the next request would be to upgrade the interface to support addressing, and security, and reliability, and ... 

 

Should we update the ebMS interface to Registry v3.0?  Now that we are getting closer to having all ebXML modules to a 3.0 level, we definitely should look at providing ebMS 3.0 Sync and Push-and-Pull (client Pushes request to, pulls responses from, registry) interfaces.  The mapping of ebRS to ebMS2 or ebMS3 (via ebCPA2/3) did not seem to be a complex challenge, last time I checked ..

 

Pim van der Eijk

---

From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
Sent: 05 April 2007 18:47
To: Ric Emery
Cc: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org; ian.c.jones@bt.com
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] SOAP 1.2 MTOM and ebMS v3

Ric,

 

Microsoft is proposing this for IHE/XDS registry web service interfacing.

 

Perhaps we should invite them to discuss on conference call?

 

DW

"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] SOAP 1.2 MTOM and ebMS v3
From: Ric Emery <remery@us.axway.com>
Date: Thu, April 05, 2007 12:28 pm
To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>, <ian.c.jones@bt.com>
Cc: <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>

SOAP with attachments is expressly supported in the ebMS 3.0 core features. MTOM support is not mentioned.
I would be concerned with MTOM usage since there is no mention of MTOM in the ebMS 3.0 spec. My opinion is that it would be problematic for an MSH to utilize MTOM without the specification outlining its use.

If MTOM usage is important the user base we should be able to discuss its use in a future addendum or part 2 of the ebMS 3 spec. Is there a reason that you think MTOM should be an option?

Thanks,
ric

On 4/5/07 9:04 AM, "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info> wrote:

Team,
 
How does this relate to ebMS v3 ?
 
 http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-mtom/
 
Is it just transparent - in that if two ebMS are using SOAP 1.2 with MTOM - then they can exchange transmissions accordingly - but controlled by the CPA and ebMS settings?  Or is MTOM re-inventing ebMS routing and handling and therefore likely to cause chaos?
 
Trying to figure out the implications here!
 
Thanks, DW

"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)