[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Conformance Profile Standardization for Deployment environments with ebMS intermediaries
Dale:
inline <JD> From: Moberg Dale [mailto:dmoberg@axway.com] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 10:45 AM To: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [ebxml-msg] Conformance Profile Standardization for Deployment environments with ebMS intermediaries My action item from this week’s ebMS
teleconference was to summarize the approach I advocated concerning
intermediaries and our existing conformance
profiles First, it is my understanding that
these existing conformance profiles remain committee drafts. I advocated moving
them fairly rapidly to committee specifications and obtaining public
reviews. To accomplish this, we need to make a few edits to the existing profiles (other than the ebMS MSH intermediary profile)
<JD> also other updates are
needed, see my email titled: "Conformance profiles for ebMS V3: need an
update? " of 7/16 So, second, each profile needs to supplemented by a section that explains the requirements for functioning in an environment including ebMS v 3 intermediaries.
<JD> Although we have to be careful that we cannot reference (yet) V3 Part 2 from this Conformance Profile adjunct doc, as long as Part 2 has no formal standing, e.g. is not published as Committee Draft at least. E.g. we can only refer to "Intermediaries" if the reader has access to a formal definition somewhere.
The essential point is that support
for WS-Addressing reference parameters as containers for ebMS 3 metadata is
required for all conformance profiles. Third, the format of this metadata
should be made explicit in the Intermediaries conformance profile.
Fourth, in each profile, it should be noted which messages will not need supplementary information (the user messages) and which ones will need this supplementary information if connecting to an ebMS v 3 intermediary. (For example, profiles depending upon WS-ReliableMessaging setup messages will need WS-Addressing containers for the metadata, but profiles using WS-Reliability do not have those requirements.)
<JD>
Right. The previous steps should allow us
to meet our goal of allowing “vanilla” conformance profiles to operate without
change with deployments involving intermediaries. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]