RE: Should ebXML standards be based on XML?

["Paul Ulrich" <paul_ulrich@hotmail.com>]

The Internet draft by Graham Klyne, entitled "Indicating media features for 
MIME content" for the IETF Content Negotiations working group, dated 30 
November 1999 and due to expire next month, envisions that the media feature 
labelling of message parts may be used in several ways, including:

"to describe the content of a message that is encrypted or encoded
using some application-specific file structure that hides the
content from a MIME processor.  This information also would not
be generally available by examination of the message content."

Any comments as to how this addresses the issue at hand?

Paul Ulrich

>From: David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
>To: "Kit (Christopher) Lueder" <kit@mitre.org>
>CC: ebxml <ebxml@lists.oasis-open.org>,        
>ebxml-requirements@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: RE: Should ebXML standards be based on XML?
>Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 08:38:27 -0700
>
>Kit
>
>The bottom line on this is that **current** XML standards do not **yet**
>meet **all** our requirements. Please note the emphasis. Specifically, it
>does not support encryption, which is a real business requirement. Below I
>present the choices we have and then an analysis of each one ... which 
>leads
>to a conclusion.
>
>If you disgree with any of this reasoning please state clearly the reasons
>why.
>
>I am also copying this to the Requirements group so that they can also
>understand the choices we are *having* to make.
>
>Regards
>
>David
>
>CHOICES
>We have a few choices for going forward:
>1. Wait until the W3C develops the standards that we need. On encryption
>this could be 12? 18? months away.
>2. Develop an ebXML but leave gaps where the w3C cannot (yet) provide
>solutions.
>3. Develop our own "XML" equivalent to cover the gaps, e.g. for encryption.
>4. Adopt an existing accepted standard method of encryption as our one and
>only ever solution. The only one I know of is S/MIME.
>5. Adopt a hybrid approach. Specifically, we do an "XML only solution" when
>encryption is not needed and some other (S/MIME?) when it is.
>6. Adopt a non-XML solution in the short term, then when the W3C or other
>standards groups have developed technology that meets our needs move 
>towards
>it.
>
>KIT. Do you agree that this is a comprehensive list of alternatives - 
>please
>suggest others if you think not ?
>
>ANALYSIS
>Option 1 - Wait for the W3C
>If we wait for the W3C to develop standards before we can completely 
>specify
>ebXML transport, then we should stop NOW, contribute to these other efforts
>to speed them and then reform later when the missing standards are becoming
>more stable. This means that no implementations of ebXML Transport could
>start until say at least 12 months away. This is unacceptable in my view -
>frankly if ebXML is not going to deliver anything useful for 18 months, 
>then
>my company has much better use to make of time.
>
>Option 2 - Leave gaps until the W3C develops a solution
>Some of the gaps (e.g. encyrption) are reall business requirements (e.g. 
>for
>C1). This means we would have to devise our own separate solution to meet
>the need. However this would non-interoperable with other solutions and
>would require implementers to devise two solutions.
>
>Option 3 - Develop our own XML technology to cover the gaps
>I would seriously question that the ebXML group has the appropriate skills
>to develop, for example, an XML based encryption approach. If we did try, 
>we
>will probably get it wrong and anyway it would compete with the W3C
>approach. This is also unacceptable as we should only do things we have the
>skill to do and we shouldn't compete with the W3C.
>
>Option 4 - Adopt an existing standard method as our one and only solution.
>This will allow us to continue working now on ebXML and will have the
>"benefit" that we will never change it ... except that existing standards
>change anyway over time. So even if, for example we only ever wanted to use
>MIME, we would have to change at some point in the future as MIME evolves. 
>I
>think we can't ever commit to a single "standard".
>
>Option 5 - Adopt a hybrid aproach.
>This is unacceptable, at least in the short term, since it means that
>implementers would *have* to develop two alternative solutions at the same
>time when there is no need. It would also overly complicate the solution 
>and
>delay its adoption.
>
>Option 6 - Adopt a non-XML solution in the short term.
>This is like Option 3 in that we can continue to move forward immediately.
>However it recognizes that existing standards evolve and new standards are
>developed. Therefore, when "good" new standards are developed that meet our
>requirements, e.g. for encryption. Then they can be adopted.
>
>CONCLUSION
>It is my honest opinion that the W3C and the XML community in general will,
>over the next 12-18 months, develop XML based solutions that will meet all
>our requirements. I also anticipate that we will more than likely adopt 
>them
>in a new version of the ebXML transport. But until then, we MUST NOT make
>the completion of our work dependent on the development of standards that
>not only do not yet exist - no work has even started on them. I think
>therefore that option 6 is the only viable approach we can take.
>
>If you disagree with my analysis, please state clearly the reasons why and
>what alternative "choice" you think meets our needs better.
>
>Regards
>
>David
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kit (Christopher) Lueder [mailto:kit@mitre.org]
>Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 5:39 AM
>To: ebxml
>Cc: ebxml-requirements
>Subject: Should ebXML standards be based on XML?
>
>
>There is an active debate currently going on at the ebXML
>Transport/Routing/Packaging list about whether the ebXML standards
>should be based on XML. The current direction of that group is to use
>MIME for the outer envelope, not XML. They are proceeding with a
>specification that will be brought forward for vote, but that seems like
>a pretty late time to ask for a change in direction, if you disagree
>with their approach. If you have any concerns, this may be an opportune
>time to express them.
>Kit Lueder.
>MITRE.
>
>--
>     _/    _/             Kit C. J. Lueder
>    _/   _/         _/   The MITRE Corp.         Tel:  703-883-5205
>   _/_/_/    _/  _/_/_/ 1820 Dolley Madison Bl  Cell: 703-577-2463
>  _/   _/   _/    _/   Mailstop W722           FAX:  703-883-7996
>_/    _/  _/    _/   McLean, VA 22102        Mail: kit@mitre.org
>Worse than an unanswered question is an unquestioned answer.
>
><snip>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com