Subject: RE: Does the current CPA/CPP spec support multi-hop?
Philippe said .. >>>The bottomline is that we need to differentiate between CPA information that covers the business aspects of the interactions between two partners, and the information that is required to carry the message over possibly multiple hops.<<< I totally agree. It should be possible to specify them separately but then link them together. I do understand that doing this within the constraints of version 1.0 could be "time challenged". If we don't though there will be an inconsistency between the "CPA" information that the TRP specs needs and the information actually contained in the CPA. David -----Original Message----- From: Philippe DeSmedt [mailto:PDeSmedt@viquity.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 11:37 AM To: Burdett, David; 'Stefano POGLIANI'; Martin W Sachs; firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: RE: Does the current CPA/CPP spec support multi-hop? David, I like your suggestion to have, in the case of multi-hop messaging, a separate CPA covering the transport aspects on each of the hops. The business agreement between A and B can still be encoded in a CPA between those two parties, but we do indeed need provisions (possibly as some form of CPA) that address the specifics of the transport on each of the hops. It may, for instance, be possible to have different transport bindings on each hop (e.g. HTTP between A and the hub, and SMTP between B and the hub), and I am not sure that such case is adequately covered in the current CPA spec. Also, as you mention in your ebXML-to-EDI example, there may not be an ebXML-compliant CPA between A and B, but we may still want to have one between A and the hub (assuming that A speaks ebXML). In addition, there may also be cases where the role of the hub is more than just a forwarding mechanism, but less than that of a full-fledged trading partner, i.e., the hub may provide some value-added services, for instance in the area of security. How CPAs can address that modality/topology is yet an entirely different issue that I do not believe we have covered in CPA so far. The bottomline is that we need to differentiate between CPA information that covers the business aspects of the interactions between two partners, and the information that is required to carry the message over possibly multiple hops. In addition, we may want to take a closer look at what functionality is actually provided at the intermediate points. -Philippe _______________________________ Philippe De Smedt Architect Viquity Corporation (www.viquity.com) 1161 N. Fair Oaks Avenue Sunnyvale, CA 94089-2102 (408) 548-9722 (408) 747-5586 (fax) email@example.com -----Original Message----- From: Burdett, David [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 10:51 AM To: 'Stefano POGLIANI'; Martin W Sachs; email@example.com Subject: RE: Does the current CPA/CPP spec support multi-hop? Stefano Although you can think of it as one business process with three parties, I don't think this is the best way of looking at it as: 1. It would require that for every new business process between A and B, then the Hub woould have to be involved whereas all that is required is for the Hub to forward the new message. 2. One of the parties, e.g. Party B, may not be ebXML aware as they are using EDI and therefore cannot sensibly enter into a CPA with Party A. The better way to think of it,IMO, is as a two CPAs between A and the Hub, and B and the Hub which are only concerned with the transport of messages and not the business process. Thoughts? David
eList eXpress LLC