RE: PartyId and Context

[Henry Lowe <hlowe@omg.org>]

David,

Agree 100%.  But, as others have said, too, I thought we'd sorted 
this one out some while back.  In fact, I was a bit of a stick in 
the mud at the time as I wanted to ensure that a URI would handle 
a CORBA IOR (it will).

Best regards,
Henry
------------------------------
At 01:45 PM 12/15/2000 -0800, Burdett, David wrote:
>Folks
>
>I do hope this doesn't become as long a thread as last time, but here goes.
>What I want to do is show a number of examples that describe what I think we
>should do and then ask for views on whether this makes sense.
>
>EXAMPLE 1
>Consider this example:
>
><From context=DUNS>45637284</From>
>
>What this means is that the number "45637284" belongs to the set of numbers
>allocated by "David's Unique Numbering System". The problem I have is how do
>you distinguish this from an **identical** From element where "DUNS" means
>Dun & Bradstreets Numbering system? You can only do this if you now the
>intention of the sender. Relying on the CPAId doesn't work since unless that
>is also globally unique, then the number will be have been allocated by the
>sender and you don't know who the sender is without looking at the CPA - a
>circular argument.
>
>EXAMPLE 2
>Consider this example:
>
><From>urn:duns.com:id:45637284</From>
>
>What this means is that someone has registered the domain name "duns.com" as
>well as a urn structure to go with . If we go to IANA, we can see who has
>registered "duns.com" probably Dun & Bradsteet we then know **completely
>unambiguously** who allocated the number and what it means and who it
>identifies. "David" would not be able to validly use "duns.com" since it
>would have already been "taken" by Dun & Bradstreet.
>
>EXAMPLE 3
>Consider this example:
>
><From usercontext=DUNS>45637284</From>
>
>If we define usercontext as meaning "a code that identifies a set of numbers
>that have allocated or devised by a party" ... with the following
>explanation ... "the values of usercontext are not necessarily unique. Two
>or more parties may allocate the same value and associate it with different
>sets of numbers. This means that sender or recipient of a message that
>contains a usercontext, MUST be sure that a recipient of the message knows
>unambiguously the party that is being identified. How this is done is
>outside the scope of this spec".
>
>SUMMARY
>What I propose is that we allow both example 2 and 3. Specifically:
>1. If no usercontext is present then the content of the From (or To) must be
>a URI.
>2. If usercontext is present then the recipients of the message must be able
>to unambiguously determine who sent the message by methods mutually agreed.
>
>Does this make sense?
>
>David
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Duane Nickull [mailto:duane@xmlglobal.com]
>Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 12:23 PM
>To: Christopher Ferris
>Cc: Scott Hinkelman; Charlie Fineman; Burdett, David;
>ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org; ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
>Subject: Re: PartyId and Context
>
>
>All:
>
>I see problems arising with the use of one and one only method for
>generating a Party ID.  We need to allow multiple schemes for
>identifying parties.
>
>In the cases where multiple SME's are using a single ASP for a web based
>onramp to the ebXML infrastructure, but they may wish to change ASP's or
>eventually get their own system, this will not work.  When a company
>looses their URI - do they loose their Party ID?
>
>URI's by themselves will not work.  They could be one such method for
>uniquely identifying a party but not the end all and be all.
>
>Duane Nickull