OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-msg message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Requirements Draft

Hello Hamid,
I was thinking of a situation where an intermediary (say a national hub) connects to 24 organizations (e.g. provinces/districts) that each have their own MSH. Then there is a reorganization of data centers where the number of data centers is reduced to four (e.g. North/South/East/West), each with its own gateway, so a gateway serves on average six regional organizations.  With ebMS 2.0 today, we only need to edit 26 routing table entries (PartyId->URI) at the intermediary.  All organizations that communicate with those 26 organizations via the intermediary (there may be  thousands of these) need not change their configurations at all.
Another case is where a particular service is hosted by one organization (with its own MSH gateway), and then outsourced to a specialized organization (with its own MSH gateway).  If the service is identified by the PartyId, it is the same as the previous case. If the service is identified by eb:Service or a combination of eb:To/eb:PartyId and eb:Service, then the routing logic is a bit more complex but could still be handled at the intermediary.

From: Ben Malek, Hamid [mailto:HBenMalek@us.fujitsu.com]
Sent: 14 February 2008 05:02
To: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Requirements Draft

Thanks Pim for the info. I certainly think that we need a formal document (one single document) that should group together the use cases/requirements and this document should be posted to Oasis site. In this document, it is important to clearly explain each use case and label it so that we can at any time refer back to any use case by just mentioning the use case number or name. Any requirement/use-case that is not in the formal document will not be considered in the solutions. Someone needs to take this action very urgently if you want the solution to Multi-Hop be released quickly…


Your last point is not clear to me (when you say: … service provided by A shifts to a specialized organization…). The new organization that took over the service, is it connected to the same Gateway as A or can it be in a different country far away? If it is connected to the same Gateway as A, then there is no problem. But if new organization is in a different country (and therefore connected to its own separate Gateway), there is no way that traffic would go to the new organization without the sender being informed of such a big change. I need to know which case you are talking about in order for me to design a solution…




From: Pim van der Eijk [mailto:pvde@sonnenglanz.net]
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2008 3:30 AM
To: Ben Malek, Hamid; 'Moberg Dale'; ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Intermediary I-cloud "requirements" draft




Let me attempt to explain how I interpret Routing Requirement (a):


Organization A interacts with a service S provided by organization B by exchanges messages via Intermediary Int. The configuration reflects some end-to-end agreement features (e.g. Service, Action, PartyId, XML schema of attached business documents) and some features that are specific to adjacent nodes (e.g. TLS certificates, URI of Int's ebMS endpoint, Pull or Push, HTTP or other protocol binding).  The remapping requirement means that it should be possible to reconfigure Int such that these messages are delivered to B without the need to notify A.


Some real life scenarios: 

- B updates his TLS certificate

- B pulls messages from Int instead of Int pushing them (or vice versa)

- Responsibility for a particular service provided by A shifts to a specialized organization, messages should flow directly to that organization's MSH.  

- "C" acting as a desaster recovery site for "B", with traffic remapped at the Intermediary.





From: Ben Malek, Hamid [mailto:HBenMalek@us.fujitsu.com]
Sent: 08 February 2008 02:18
To: Moberg Dale; ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Intermediary I-cloud "requirements" draft

Thanks Dale for the effort to tackle the “Goals” topic which was not addressed very extensively. My comments are inine…


From: Moberg Dale [mailto:dmoberg@axway.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 8:50 AM
To: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ebxml-msg] Intermediary I-cloud "requirements" draft


Here are some of the goals (not axioms!) that we have been discussing for building various I-clouds. It is too early for axioms IMO.


[Hamid]: I don’t know if you are joking with your comment (not axioms!) or you are serious. If you are joking, I need not comment on this. If you are serious, I may need to clarify what I meant by axioms: When I was talking to Sander, I used the term axiom in a “joke” way (not a serious talk). The meaning of my joke was that the design principles should be considered as axioms (meaning that they are extremely important holy law that can never be broken or violated). Indeed, the axioms come after the goals have been specified. Once we know the goals, we write down the axioms (the design principles) that any solution must conform to in order to be an acceptable and a very good solution to standardize. I thought the goals were already specified, otherwise why would we be discussing Sander’s solution on the conf call? If the goals are not yet defined, then Sander should not even propose a solution. In any case, I am very glad that we are starting to tackle the “goals” topic, and I wish I can get more and more information on this topic so that the solution we will propose would be the best. Thank you for providing such an information, but I still have some questions about it as my comments below will show you…




a.     intermediary cloud can remap an original sender’s message types to a new recipient without the original sender changing its configuration

[Hamid]: First of all, I will be very grateful that you define terminology very precisely before any talk. I never heard the term I-Cloud (or intermediary cloud), and it should be defined before you propose the goals. This is not just for this term, but any terms you will be using in the list of goals need to be defined with great precision and on the front. I will assume here that you mean a chain of Intermediaries (or a network of intermediaries) unless I am mistaken.

Second, I am not sure I really understand your sentence (and forgive my stupidity). What do you mean by “remap” and what do you mean by “type”? Remap a message type: does that mean changing the type of a message to another type? (an Intermediary receives an “Ack” type of message, and it changes that message to something else like an ebms3 user message piggy-backed with the Ack or maybe to another  type of message?

What do you mean “to a new recipient”? The original sender is sending for example a user message with a To-Party equals to “sun.com”, and your I-Cloud is giving the message to a receiver that might not even be the party with the name “sun.com”?

b.    intermediary should strive to maintain transparency by not modifying message excessively

[Hamid]: I am against any modification of the message being passing through the Intermediaries. “Not excessively” is a very vague word (and very dangerous to use). It does not give a measure of what kind of modifications are allowed. My position on this is very clear: I don’t allow any Intermediary to modify the message.


Transparency aspects


a.     original signatures remain unbroken (and probably need to be designed to withstand some I-cloud modifications)

[Hamid]: Sometimes, there is a huge difference between theory and practice. In theory, we can elegantly state that signatures should be designed to not be broken easily. In practice, it is extremely difficult for a SOAP node to know whether the modification it wants to do may or may not break existing signatures. The position on this should be very clear by simply not allowing modifications of the message except the headers that are only intended for the Intermediaries. Your sentence I-cloud modifications smells lots of trouble and it scares me a lot. There is only one type of modification (not modifications): the Intermediary may remove the header that is intended for the Intermediaries only. Only the last Intermediary may remove such a header.

b.    reliability assurances are preserved to the extent possible – end to end if possible

[Hamid]: There is no problem with this goal. We were aware of this, and it was taken care of in our solution.

c.     data confidentiality is preserved (and may also need to be designed/constrained to enable I-cloud presence)

[Hamid]: I agree with data confidentiality, but I don’t agree that as a sender, I should constrain my confidentiality just because my message will go through intermediaries as opposed to peer-to-peer. The design of Intermediaries architecture should take into consideration that a sender is free to encrypt everything (except the headers that are intended for Intermediaries only).



a.     Core conformance endpoints (original sender and ultimate receiver) should not need to modify behavior [at all | excessively].

The sender and receiver are not modifying their behavior at all (this was implicit in axiom 5 J)

b.    MSH intermediaries will have special conformance profile

[Hamid]: Totally agree on this: an “Intermediary” is a separate role by itself, and it obviously deserves a conformance profile.


SOAP intermediary


a.     A MSH intermediary is also a SOAP intermediary, but may be constrained in certain ways by SOAP (probably underconstrained by SOAP Intermediary rules)

[Hamid]: Intermediary rules only cover the nature of the processing itself: that is what are the actions an Intermediary should do as part of the “header processing”. This is outside the SOAP spec.

b.    A MSH SOAP intermediary can be targeted by headers and those headers removed.

[Hamid]: Yes that is the case. The last intermediary is the one who can remove those headers.

c.     Addition of headers must be carefully scrutinized with respect to Transparency aspects.

[Hamid]: What type of addition of headers you are talking about? Do you mean an Intermediary may add headers that are not even intended for Intermediaries but rather intended for an MSH or a Reliability module for example (like sending a create sequence as Sander’s diagram is illustrating)? The answer is no. Intermediaries are not allowed to add headers that are not intended for them. There will be no transparency if the message can be modified in weird ways.


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]