Re: [ebxml-msg] New drafts for AS4

[Theo Kramer <theo@flame.co.za>]

Some feedback from our sw development dept

'Doc update looks good, more accurate, I see we're going to have to add  a ReceptionAwareness flag to the pmode'.

On the doc structure - section 2.2.3 - numbering for General PMode parameters starts at 0 and is not 'automated' ie. the 0 is manually typed in. 

0. General PMode parameters:

On 22 Feb 2011, at 11:47 AM, Pim van der Eijk wrote:

>  
> Hello,
>  
> Jacques and I worked on cleaning up the AS4 draft for the 2nd PR over the past few days. 
> 
> ODT source:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=41222
>  
> PDF export:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=41224
>  
> ODT source with diffs to the CS 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=41223
>  
> Those of you with AS4 implementations and/or WS-Security expertise, please have a look at the examples (one new) in section A.
>  
> This draft does not take into account some potential enhancements:
>  
> 1) There has also been some discussion about splitting the Client Conformance Clause in two separate clauses, 
> -  one requiring full WS-Security support (X.509 and UserName token)
> -  and the other only requiring the UserName token (relying on SSL/TLS to protect the message)
> Advantage:  even easier to implement and no PKI requirements  
> Downside:   another conformance clause is confusing.
>  
> 2) A conformance clause that requires support for AS2 and AS4,  like the "Gateway V2/V3" profiles require support for ebMS 2.0 and 3.0.
> Advantage:  may increase acceptance of and confidence in AS4 in communities that are currently AS2 users.
> Downside:   another conformance clause is confusing.
>  
> If the TC decides in favor of these changes, they can easily be added to the spec.
>  
> Pim
>  
>  

-- 
Regards
Theo