RE: [ebxml-msg] AS4 issues

[Moberg Dale <dmoberg@axway.com>]

> 11-  Support for Two Way MEPs.   This is not needed for EDIINT,  but in essence allowing an MSH to set the value for RefToMessageId adds minimal complexity to an implementation.   It allowsAS4 to be used also for SOA-style, request/response interactions.

Why not N-way MEPs covering multiple legs (or a complete B2B business process conversation) ?

Then an issue that has come up with interop testing with the JEITA system is a question on whether the application message must be in the soap envelope body part, or as an attachment - I can't find anything specific on this in either the AS4 spec or in the core spec...Regards  Theo

Comment:

It is always possible for an implementation to support multiple conformance profiles. Rather than add features to the AS4 conformance profile, it might be preferable simply to point out that the additional features can be found in implementations that conform to AS4 and also some selected richer conformance profile. Perhaps there can be a recommendation made by groups needing this additional functionality as to which ebMS 3 conformance profile can provide this additional functionality?

At any rate, I think we should resist the temptation to expand the AS4 profile. ebMS3 profiles are available with additional functionality. And using AS4 for cloud interconnect (for example) may benefit from having a mix that spans ebMS3 core (part 1) functionality and selected ebMS 3 advanced (part 2) functionality. Or so it seems to me.