Re: [ebxml-dev] ebMS vs RNIF - Reliable messaging

[David Lyon <david.lyon@globaltradedesk.com>]

I apologise for this break in the seriousness of this topic, but I once was
shown what was claimed to be the most reliable EDI messaging system. After
two years, there had not been a single communications failure or problem.

The EDI office was open between 1:00pm and 2:00pm and Orders needed to be
placed through the VAN before this time to ensure that they would be
despatched. The packing and despatch happened in the early hours of the
morning.

I was shown the reason for this 100% reliability. It was an old guy about 65
years of age who had mastered Telix which was a terminal program that was
big at one time before GUIs. He was so competant that nothing ever went
wrong.

With each Purchase Order having an average value of around $300,000 the
company said they couldn't afford not to pay him the $100 for the one hour
per day that he did the work. They couldn't find a system at the time that
would offer as good reliability for the money.

I left impressed. It seemed like good business sense to me. It worked
perfectly every time.

My point is that this is what has existed as reliable messaging for some
companies using EDI. Lars, don't fret too much about reliable messaging as
it seems that everybody claims that they have one, but when you talk to
business analysts, they say there are hardly any on the market. Who knows,
maybe the truth lies somewhere in between.

David Lyon
Product Manager
Global TradeDesk Exchange
www.globaltradedesk.com


----- Original Message -----
From: <Lars.E.Abrell@skanova.com>
To: <arvola@tibco.com>; <spatil@iona.com>
Cc: <ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 7:53 PM
Subject: RE: [ebxml-dev] ebMS vs RNIF


Thanks all for your kind responses

I have some more questions - specially regarding the reliable messaging
capabilities of RNIF 2.0.
In several answers I have got (both online and offline) I'm told that RNIF
does NOT provide reliable messaging.

On the other hand, in a paper (from WebMethods) comparing RNIF 1.1 and RNIF
2.0 I have read that:

"RNIF specifies a reliable messaging mechanism based on Acknowledgements and
supplies a set of standard choreography models that all PIPs must follow."

 <<RNIF 1.1 - 2.0.pdf>>
By reading the answers, the above paper and also the RNIF 2.0 spec - and I'm
now a bit confused.

Is it true that RNIF 2.0 only provide a reliable messaging mechanism when
you also use the different RosettaNet PIP's? I.e RNIF 2.0 can not be
considered as a "standalone" Message Service Handler (MSH) in the same way
as ebMS? And that the reliable messaging mechanism in RosettaNet is achieved
by sending "Receipt Acknowledgment" messages/documents from the "application
layer" by executing the RosettaNet PIP's?

Also I understand that the future RNIF 3.0 will be layered on top of ebMS.
Or even that RNIF 3.0 == ebMS?
Is it true that ebMS will be used INSTEAD of RNIF (3.0) or what capabilities
do you believe that RNIF 3.0 will put on top of ebMS?

When do you believe that this new RNIF 3.0 spec will be available?

My best regards

Lars Abrell
Telia / Skanova

> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: spatil@iona.com [SMTP:spatil@iona.com]
> Skickat: den 11 april 2002 00:20
> Till: Abrell, Lars E. /Skanova /075-152 07 75, 0705-61 90 80;
ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
> Ämne: RE: [ebxml-dev] ebMS vs RNIF
>
>
> In terms of core functionality, they are pretty close to each other i.e.
both of these
> protocols ...
> 1. support multiple transports (HTTP/S, SMTP), MIME packaging
> 2. define semantics and syntax for carrying over bulk of the messaging
metadata such as from, to, timestamp, business process identifier,
correlation ID, description of contained business document, etc
> 3. support synchronous, asynchronous messaging, one-way/two-way
interactions
> 4. support binary attachments
> ...
>
> Where ebXML has upper hand is in ...
> 1. Specification defined reliable messaging (helps ensure
interoperability)
> 2. Better technology for persistent signatures. In addition, specification
includes outline of an array of  security services and various combinations
in terms of profile (again helping interoperability as capabilities can be
described in terms of precisely defined profiles)
> 3. Multi-hop messaging
> 4. Provisions for addressing partner agreements as part of the messages
> 5. Horizontal protocol, not limited to any vertical or types of business
processes in terms of interaction pattern such as two-way, two-party, etc.
>
>
> RNIF on the  other hand has upper hand in
> 1. Relatively mature - multiple vendor solutions, testing tool kits
available today
> 2. Less optional features, easier in terms of ensuring interoperability
> 3. Security solutions based on commonly available, mature technologies
>
> Hopefully the efforts are merging (there are already solid signs of
progress in this direction) and if I am not wrong, the common solution will
be based on ebXML Messaging.
>
> There are quite a few vendors providing solutions for both of these,
recently.
> IONA has been a key participant in specification development and also
early adoption in terms of providing solution, promoting interoperability,
etc  for both RosettaNet and ebXML. RNIF 1.1, RNIF 2.0 and ebXML Messaging
2.0 solutions are part of IONA's offerings.
>
> thanks,
> Sanjay Patil
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------
> IONA
> END 2 ANYWHERE
> Phone: 408 350 9619                                 http://www.iona.com
>
>
-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: arvola@tibco.com [SMTP:arvola@tibco.com]
Skickat: den 10 april 2002 23:28
Till: Abrell, Lars E. /Skanova /075-152 07 75, 0705-61 90 80;
ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
Ämne: RE: [ebxml-dev] ebMS vs RNIF

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