Subject: Re: Does the current CPA/CPP spec support multi-hop?
David: Boy, that certainly opens up a can of worms! So what you are saying is that the payload transformation is going from a well-formed document (if we can nail that one down) to a non-XML data type. More specifically, are you implying that if party A and party B are both operating under "ebXML' semantic rules, then there is no reason to reformat? Is ebXML going to specify transformation rules into non-XML data types as well? It seems to me that this sort of reformatting is itself an end application leaving the ebXML world and realistically cannot be cast as a multi-hop situation. Multi-hop sort of implies a two-way dialog meaning that the specification would have to account for inputting an EDI document, a plain text email, or a fax as well. Sandy > From: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com> > Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 17:38:30 -0800 > To: 'Sandy Klausner' <klausner@coretalk.net>, 'Stefano POGLIANI' > <stefano.pogliani@sun.com>, Philippe DeSmedt <PDeSmedt@viquity.com>, Martin W > Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>, ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org > Subject: RE: Does the current CPA/CPP spec support multi-hop? > > Sandy > > Examples would include a hub that received a message in an ebXML wrapper > then forwarded it as one of the following: an EDI document, a plain text > email or a fax. > > David > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sandy Klausner [mailto:klausner@coretalk.net] > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 5:23 PM > To: Burdett, David; 'Stefano POGLIANI'; Philippe DeSmedt; Martin W > Sachs; ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org > Subject: Re: Does the current CPA/CPP spec support multi-hop? > > > David: > Your clarification is useful and I would be interested in a drill down as to > the specific requirements for a "midway" hub type. I agree that its function > would be limited to performing envelope and payload reformatting and perhaps > retransmission under a different protocol. I would question the > applicability for ebXML to get involved in protocol transport level issues > which only leaves open the reformatting function. Can you site several > concrete examples where reformatting is required? > Sandy > >> From: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com> >> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:59:56 -0800 >> To: 'Stefano POGLIANI' <stefano.pogliani@sun.com>, Philippe DeSmedt >> <PDeSmedt@viquity.com>, Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>, >> ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org >> Subject: RE: Does the current CPA/CPP spec support multi-hop? >> >> Stefano >> >> I think the type of "hub" that I'm describing lies mid-way between the >> following two extremes: >> 1. A very dumb hub that examines a message, determines the URL the message >> needs to be forwarded to and then forwards the message, unchanged, using > the >> same transport protocol to a different URL address ... and >> 2. An intelligent hub that examines a message to understand the business >> process that is involved then amends/updates the detail of the payload > data >> in the hub according the requirements of that business process as agreed >> between all the parties involved and finally forwards the amended/updated >> message to wherever it needs to go. >> >> The "mid-way" example that I am thinking of is as follows ... >> >> 3. A reasonably intelligent hub that examines the message and determines > a) >> the format and structure of the payload and b) the party that the message >> needs to be forwarded to. It then determines the format envelope and > payload >> formats that the party requires and the transport protocol that is to be >> used. It then reformats the message envelope/payload as required and >> forwards the message to the required party. The Hub is completely ignorant >> of any business process or rules associated with the message. >> >> In this example, the Hub does not need to know any details of the business >> process and only information connected with the Delivery Channel. I don't >> think the current CPA/CPP directly support this which is what Phillipe was >> saying. >> >> I hope this clarifies the use case that I was thinking of. >> >> David >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Stefano POGLIANI [mailto:stefano.pogliani@sun.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 2:36 PM >> To: Philippe DeSmedt; Burdett, David; Martin W Sachs; >> ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org >> Subject: RE: Does the current CPA/CPP spec support multi-hop? >> >> >> Philippe, David, >> >> I try to summarise what I understood of them and provide some generic >> comment here. >> >> - if B is NOT ebXML aware and cannot enter in a CPA with A, I do not >> understand how this may be a multi-hop scenario. >> >> - if the Hub needs to "convert" the message from HTTP to SMTP (or any > other >> conversion stuff) then either this conversion is mechanical or it is >> another way for defining an active participation of the HUB into the >> Business Process. >> >> - In my modest opinion, multi hop is when the Hub really does not do >> anything >> else than acting as a middle point, without translation nor change in >> the protocol semantic. In my opinion what you both describe is a situation >> where the Hub does much more than that: at least it implements a >> rudimental >> state machine to twist things from the sender to the receiver. >> >> - I think (but this is simply me) that whenever the segments should change >> protocol semantic, then we do not actually think of a hub but think to >> a Party (which may not be very intelligent, but is anyway accountable of >> the >> minimum work that it does) >> >> This last thing is what makes me thinking my way; whenever there is some >> action >> (translation, change of protocol) we have a new actor in the chain which >> may become accountable of any fault. >> I remember that in Tokyo I tried to define the difference between a hub > and >> a party >> on respect to accountability: a hub is just a technical mean which will >> never >> become accountable because it is not actually seen by the participants. >> >> Sorry if these are just brainstomring thoughts. Hope they make at least > some >> sense. >> >> Best regards >> >> /Stefano >> >> >> /stefano >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Philippe DeSmedt [mailto:PDeSmedt@viquity.com] >>> Sent: 31 January 2001 20:37 >>> To: 'Burdett, David'; 'Stefano POGLIANI'; Martin W Sachs; >>> ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.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) >>> pdesmedt@viquity.com >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Burdett, David [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 10:51 AM >>> To: 'Stefano POGLIANI'; Martin W Sachs; ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >
Powered by
eList eXpress LLC