RE: [ebxml-dev] ebMS vs RNIF

[Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com>]

Please see my embedded comments.

 

-Arvola

-----Original Message-----
From: Lars.E.Abrell@skanova.com [mailto:Lars.E.Abrell@skanova.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 12:47 PM
To: ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: [ebxml-dev] ebMS vs RNIF


Hi,
we have an internal discussion regarding ebMS vs. RNIF.

If we are not using the RosettaNet PIP's (processes and documents) - is it best to use ebMS or RNIF as wire protocol?

<arvola>

RosettaNet is a vertical standard focusing on the needs of the Information Technology, Electronic Components, and Semi conductor Manufacturing industries, whereas ebMS is intended as a horizontal standard. If you are not using RosettaNet PIPs, it is preferrable to use ebMS as the wire protocol because:

1. It is compatible with SOAP.

2. It offers reliable messaging capabilities.

3. It supports XML Digital Signature which is more flexible compared with S/MIME (supported in RNIF) in terms of allowing referenced objects (not necessarily part of the physical message payload) to be signed.

4. It may have wider interoperability with third-party B2B implementations.

</arvola>

What are the pros & cons of using ebMS (2.0) vs. RNIF (2.0)?

<arvola>

If you want to use SMTP as the transport protocol, then you will probably need payload encryption. This is directly supported in RNIF 2.0 using S/MIME.

Payload encryption is not specified in ebMS 2.0. TIBCO's ebXML offerring does support payload encryption. However, this is not guaranteed to inter-operate with ebXML software offerings from third parties.

TIBCO's RNIF 2.0 implementation has been available since the summer of 2001. It is a more mature product compared with TIBCO's ebXML offering.

</arvola>

Does anyone have or are aware of any document comparing ebMS (ebXML Messaging Service) and RNIF (RosettaNet Implementation Framwork).

<arvola>

As part of the investigation for the feasibility of layering RNIF 3.0 on top of ebMS, the RosettaNet engineering team has looked into the mapping between RosettaNet message headers and ebXML message headers. However, that analysis does not really compare ebMS features agaist those of RNIF.

</arvola>

Best Regards

Lars Abrell
Telia / Skanova                  

-----Original Message-----
From: Lars.E.Abrell@skanova.com [mailto:Lars.E.Abrell@skanova.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 12:47 PM
To: ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: [ebxml-dev] ebMS vs RNIF


Hi,
we have an internal discussion regarding ebMS vs. RNIF.

If we are not using the RosettaNet PIP's (processes and documents) - is it best to use ebMS or RNIF as wire protocol?

What are the pros & cons of using ebMS (2.0) vs. RNIF (2.0)?

Does anyone have or are aware of any document comparing ebMS (ebXML Messaging Service) and RNIF (RosettaNet Implementation Framwork).

Best Regards

Lars Abrell
Telia / Skanova