OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-poc message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: Re: ebXML Proof of Concept Proposal v0.5


Looks great! What a transformation! I must commend you on producing such a professional document in such a short period

Few comments and questions. I italicized and quoted the text that is taken directly from the proposal document.

1. When we say "trading partners can by dynamically added to the network and participate in processes by declaring which roles they will fulfill", how dynamic are we mean? and what is involved in "declaring"? I mean are we using these in "electronic" sense or more like with a 'short notice to the people coordinating the demo', so that some sort of set-up, configurations can take place? I take it, it is the latter.

2. Is there any significance to / order implied by, the outer circle in the proposed trading network diagram.

3. In the description under "Payloads", I don't quite understand what is meant by the second sentence in the text that I reproduced below. Can you please clarify / elaborate?
    "Payloads generated for the messages should adhere to the appropriate RosettaNet PIP 3A4 DTD specifications.  Additionally, those participants assuming the role of “Requester” in the environment must publish any field mappings from their request message that are required for the “Responder” to generate a valid response/acknowledgement message"

4. Hub Routing:  It says, "This proof-of-concept will utilize a hub-spoke model.".
    a. Are we saying for August, we will NOT use point-to-point?
    b.  Did we decide we would use HTTP only for Hub, or is the intention to use the Hub model with SMTP also. If latter, I take it Philippe is o.k. with that.

5. If SMTP is part of the Hub model, I am not sure if we can guarantee "hub should not cause any alteration of the envelope, header or payload of the messages". I mean SMTP (mail) servers are likely to add additional headers to the (transport) envelope, which gets into the message envelope also (per ebXML scheme)!

6. In "Packaging" section, it says:

"It should be noted that there is a significant problem with the current draft of the packaging standard that effectively prevents the receiving application from recognizing the header part.  The RFC for generating MIME Content-ID mandates only that they be unique strings.  Therefore, the receiving application cannot depend on the presence of the “ebxmlheader” and “ebxmlpayload” tokens preceding the unique id to identify the header vs. payload parts.  In order to resolve this issue in the demonstration environment, participants must include the “Start:” directive shown in the example above."

 I am sorry, that is not the case anymore. The spec is very clear on the Content-IDs being unique. I believe this was a problem in one of the earlier versions. The current spec reads:

"The value for Content-ID should be a unique identifier, in accordance with RFC 2045. An example usage follows:
Content-ID: ebxmlheader-com-8760-2000-0722-161201-123456789"

Also, the "Start: uid@originator-domain [from header Content-ID]" should be a parameter to the multipart/related content-type, not a separate header element (if used). Since ebXML packaging spec does not require it. may be we could drop it.

7. Again in packaging (para following the above) says:   "It should also be noted that the payload Content-Type must be application/x-rosettanet as outlined in the RNIF 1.1 specification."

I am sorry, that is not true. It should simply be "application/xml". The example ebXML message "payload" content-type also must be changed to application/xml from "application/x-rosettanet".

8. From the description in the "Transport" section, it is not clear to me if are planing to show use of SMTP (and other transports) for August or not (or) are we shooting for HTTP and Hub scenario only. The text seems to imply that. Can you please clarify.

That is all I have.

Thanks, Prasad

Marc Breissinger wrote:


Attached is latest rev of the POC proposal.  Please read through and respond
with comments.  I will complete the TPA section tomorrow.

Sorry for the delay,

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC