RE: confusion on where to discuss trading partners

[David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com>]

Marty

I agree with you when you say we need the separation of responsibilties
between TRP and TP properly defined. However I think they do overlap so we
need to make sure they are clear. Here are my ideas ...

THE BASIC SPLIT OF RESPONSIBILITIES ...
---------------------------------------
1. TRP is responsibile for:
  a) defining (amongst other things) the content and structure of the ebXML
Header Document that accompanies a document
2. TP is responsible for:
  a) defining what information (the Party Profile) one party must hold about
another before they can send an ebXML compliant message to another party
  b) defining how two (or more) parties can negotiate and agree the content
of the information and record it in a Trading Partner Agreement (TPA)

PROBLEM AREAS AND SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS ...
-----------------------------------------
PROBLEM 1
There is a use case where, the information one party holds about another is
sent in an ebXML message (see the 2nd use case in the attachment to my
email: Dated: Tue 08/22/2000 2:36 PM; Subject: Trading Partner/Party
Discovery/Agreement Use Cases). This means that there is a conflice between
1a) and 2a).
SUGGESTED SOLUTION
1. TRP amends the ebXML Message Header so that there are place(s) in the
document structure to either:
  a) reference a previously agreed the Trading Partner Agreement,
  b) hold an actual Trading Partner Profile
2. TP specifies what goes into the Party Profile

PROBLEM 2
TP cannot completely specify what goes into the Party Profile as some of it
will be dependent on, for example, how the TRP team specifies the parameters
that are needed to control reliable messaging.
SUGGESTED SOLUTION
1. The TRP team specifies the parameters needed to control the behavior of
an ebXML Messaging Service using two main sources of information:
  a) existing profile specs, e.g IBM's TPA/ML, eCo
  b) the requirements of the ebXML Messaging Services Spec itself
2. The TP team uses this information to help it develop a specification for
the Party Profile that is then reviewed and agreed with the TRP team.

Hope this helps.

David
PS Was the "very senior individual in ebXML" Bob Sutor?
===========
To:   ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org, ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
cc:
From: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
Subject:  confusion on where to discuss trading partners


A very  senior individual in ebXML has noticed a lot of discussion of
trading parners on the TRP list and asked me to remind everyone that
discussion of trading partners belongs on the TP list.  I agree.

However I also recognize that trading partners will continue to come up in
TRP discussions because a large fraction of the TPA consists of
messaging-service configuration information.  We should all be sensitive to
the need to transfer any discussion thread to the TP list when it becomes
exclusively devoted to trading-partner matters.

As a practical matter, I urge that anyone interested in the subject of
trading-partner profiles and electronic TPAs subscribe to both the
transport and the TP lists.

Praying for a successful delivery (to both lists), I am

Yours sincerely,
Marty

****************************************************************************
*********

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
****************************************************************************
*********