RE: What's the right forum for developing XML Messaging

["Michie, Alan" <Alan.Michie@corpmail.telstra.com.au>]

To Rik Drummond, Dave Burdett

Greetings from Australia

I am in favour of the approach suggested by Rik, and suggest we get on with
the next step.

I have previously emailed Dave Burdett, offering to give some assistance to
the group in producing a tight specification of the "generic approach" which
is outlined in his document ....xmlmessage "requirements".  I should be able
to assist in many parts of such a specification, although I am a relative
newcomer to the areas of security, tamper resistance and authentication.

Is there already a draft on which comments are invited or are you waiting
for someone to produce the first draft?

Regards

Alan Michie
Project Leader
eBusiness Program
Telstra Research Laboratories





> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Rik Drummond [SMTP:drummond@onramp.net]
> Sent:	Thursday, 17 February 2000 12:43 am
> To:	David Burdett; sutor@us.ibm.com
> Cc:	Dick Brooks (E); ebXML Transport (E-mail); IETF Trade (E-mail)
> Subject:	RE: What's the right forum for developing XML Messaging
> 
> I have spent the last week in discussions with various IETF wg chairs
> on the XML header issue. here is where we stand:
> 	- two of IETF wg's have CLEAR impact in this area: 1) EDIINT and 2)
> IOTP
> 
> 	- EDIINT has it in its charter
> 
> 	- IOTP has a proposal to put it in it charter
> 
> 	- IOTP chair has no problem with EDIINT leading the XML header
> 	requirements and definition effort over the next 6 months
> 
> 	- EDIINT needs to define these headers within its workgroup anyway
> 
> I propose the following:
> 	- EDIINT drive this effort unofficially from IETF'S point of view.
> 	I lead the ebXML transport team and am chair of the EDIINT wg...
> 	so this is completely doable and I thank will resolve many of the
> 	issues Dave Burdett has noted.
> 
> 	- I, with Dave Burdett the author of the XML messaging paper and
> 	the editor for the ebXML transport team, will coordinate the IETF
> 	and ebXML efforts to that we don't do it twice. (or three times)
> 
> 	- I suggest, we think of the XML messaging paper Dave has authored
> as
> 	under EDIINT wg for the next six months so that EDIINT will not
> 	have to do another one
> 
> 	- the resulting work from the requirements and the XML header
> definition
> 	will be issued through IETF'S EDIINT and IOTP wg's and the ebXML
> transport
> team.
> 
> 	- I Will investigate making this relationship formal between the
> IETF and
> ebXML
> 
> if this is not a problem with anyone, we will move forward quickly..
> 
> best regards, Rik
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Burdett [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 1:20 AM
> To: sutor@us.ibm.com; Rik Drummond
> Cc: Dick Brooks (E); ebXML Transport (E-mail); IETF Trade (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: What's the right forum for developing XML Messaging
> 
> 
> Bob
> 
> You say ...
> 
> >>>However, we welcome the participation of the IETF and we are happy to
> have a dialog about how we can most effectively use the resources of both
> organizations to produce the highest quality result.<<<
> 
> Neither the IETF nor the ebXML have ANY resources. What they do have is
> individuals who work for companies who aim to develop solutions to common
> problems in an open way for the benefit of themselves, their companies and
> the wider community.
> 
> Whether the individuals concerned work within the domain of the IETF or
> ebXML is immaterial. If the same group of individuals work on essentially
> the same problems from the same starting point in either forum then the
> end
> result will be very similar.
> 
> I am actually neutral about whether work, such as the TP&R work, should be
> done in the IETF or ebXML as I think either could work. What really counts
> is finding a forum for a community of individuals representing the
> companies
> who will actually implement the solutions to work rapidly towards a common
> end point. If we don't then we will risk the development of competing
> standards which is in no-one's interest.
> 
> So what we are talking about here really is finding a governance structure
> that works for everyone. Perhaps a joint governance approach between ebXML
> and the IETF might be appropriate and helpful if one were possible to set
> up.
> 
> I also know that individuals CAN't sensibly work to develop simultaneously
> two solutions to essentially a single problem. Hence my original email.
> 
> David
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sutor@us.ibm.com [mailto:sutor@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2000 6:27 PM
> To: Rik Drummond
> Cc: Dick Brooks (E); David Burdett; ebXML Transport (E-mail); IETF Trade
> (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: What's the right forum for developing XML Messaging
> 
> 
> Let me add a bit to this. Just for the record, I work for IBM, I'm on the
> OASIS board,
> and I'm Vice-Chair of ebXML.
> 
> IBM has participated in many of the fine efforts of the IETF. So it is
> wrong to say in
> any way that IBM is anti-IETF. We will continue to particpate in the IETF,
> ebXML, OASIS,
> W3C, HL7, IFX Forum, ...
> 
> The ebXML effort is a unique attempt by more than 100 people representing
> over 50
> companies, consortiums, and trade organizations to provide a coherent,
> unified
> infrastructure solution around XML for e-business. In order to relevant,
> this work must be
> done quickly and thus must synthesize quality work that has been done
> elsewhere.
> In some cases the work we do will be new, but we will always first look at
> existing
> art and we will work with other consortiums where appropriate. In the case
> where the
> other work is being done concurrently, we will endeavor to work together
> with the
> other consortium to create a final standard that is actually useful and
> does not
> divide the industry. We welcome all organizations involved to share in
> this
> commitment. We welcome all companies and organizations who are not
> involved to join us and create a positive result. We hope that their
> involvement
> from the inside will make the ebXML effort stronger and maximally
> inclusive.
> In my opinion, it does no person, company, or organization any good for
> them
> to use their lack of involvement as a poliical lever to criticize the
> effort.
> 
> The messaging work being done within Rik's group is central to much of
> what
> will come out of ebXML and is also likely to be one of the first
> deliverables. I
> therefore feel that the work must remain within ebXML. However, we welcome
> the participation of the IETF and we are happy to have a dialog about how
> we can most effectively use the resources of both organizations to produce
> the highest quality result. We are very open-minded about the
> structure of such a collaboration and in no way am I looking at this as
> being an ebXML vs. IETF or an IBM vs. Microsoft issue. If others wish to
> make it such, I would appreciate their open statements to this effect.
> 
> _____________________________________________________
> 
> Bob Sutor
> 
>         IBM XML Strategy and Technology Group: http://www.ibm.com/xml
>         OASIS Chief Strategy Officer: http://www.oasis-open.org
> 
>         Office 716-243-2445 / Fax 716-243-1778 / Tieline 320-9138
>         Cellular 716-317-6899 / Pager 1-800-946-4645 PIN # 1473757
> 
> 
> "Rik Drummond" <drummond@onramp.net>@lists.oasis-open.org on 02/13/2000
> 06:59:24 PM
> 
> Sent by:  owner-ebxml-transport@lists.oasis-open.org
> 
> 
> To:   "Dick Brooks (E)" <dick@8760.com>, "David Burdett"
>       <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
> cc:   "ebXML Transport (E-mail)" <ebXML-Transport@lists.oasis-open.org>,
>       "IETF Trade (E-mail)" <ietf-trade@lists.eListX.com>
> Subject:  RE: What's the right forum for developing XML Messaging
> 
> 
> 
> ibm and microsoft are at logger-heads... forcing a decision to go to
> ietf..
> means ibm will not easily follow. forcing a decision to stay in ebxml
> means
> that microsoft will not participate.... so we should not force a decision
> by
> stirring things up until we see if we can find a win/win. i am not sure
> one
> exists... but then i am not done looking for one yet... best regards, Rik
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ebxml-transport@lists.oasis-open.org
> [mailto:owner-ebxml-transport@lists.oasis-open.org]On Behalf Of Dick
> Brooks (E)
> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 9:06 PM
> To: David Burdett; Rik Drummond
> Cc: ebXML Transport (E-mail); IETF Trade (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: What's the right forum for developing XML Messaging
> 
> 
> Rik, I wouldn't classify Dave's e-mail to TRADE as "forcing an either or
> decision". Candidly, I'm not convinced the IETF is the right forum for an
> XML standard. The IETF rules regarding RFC status of interdependcies, ref:
> S/MIME,  could require us to make XML and other non-IETF standards IETF
> RFC's first. As you know this can take some time.
> 
> At this juncture we know that XML Messaging is one of several fine
> candidates in the running to become  the ebXML transport standard. We will
> know if it's the best solution after our group has had time to evalute all
> candidates in detail. I think the entire community would be best served if
> we focus on identifying what is best for ebXML and when we know what the
> best solution is we should pitch it to the appropriate standards bodies
> for
> endorsement. Anything else is premature.
> 
> Dave, it really is a personal decision as to which effort you wish to
> focus
> on and only you can make this call.
> 
> just my .02
> 
> Dick
> http://www.8760.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ebxml-transport@lists.oasis-open.org
> [mailto:owner-ebxml-transport@lists.oasis-open.org]On Behalf Of David
> Burdett
> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 6:21 PM
> To: Rik Drummond
> Cc: ebXML Transport (E-mail); IETF Trade (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: What's the right forum for developing XML Messaging
> 
> 
> Rik
> 
> I'm not forcing a "one or the other decision" I'm trying to be practical.
> Right now IETF XML Messaging and ebXML TP&R are of just about identical
> scope and at an identical stage of development. Therefore it does not
> really
> make sense for two groups of people to work in parallel on the same
> activities that might result in competing specifications.
> 
> I'm also the editor on both initiatives as well as author of the XML
> Messaging Requirements document that has just been published. So it will
> be
> impossible and impractical for any work I do in one group to not influence
> the other.
> 
> More importantly I do not have the time to work on both. So on a personal
> level I have no option but to choose one or other of the initiatives to
> work
> on.
> 
> I therefore thought it only fair to draw to the attention of the IETF
> Trade
> WG community the necessity for me to choose which initiative to work on as
> well as point out the opportunity for the Trade WG members to get involved
> in ebXML if they want to since I think it an important and worthwhile
> open-standards initiative.
> 
> There is also an IETF Trade WG Meeting in Adelaide, Australia at the end
> of
> March and I wanted to provide an opportunity for discussion on the email
> list before the meeting as this will make any discussion in the Adelaide
> meeting better informed.
> 
> There is also a possibility that I will not be able to make the Adelaide
> meeting so email discussion within the IETF is in my view essential and
> sooner rather than later.
> 
> As far as the other initiatives are concerned, then I agree that we need
> to
> continue our co-ordination efforts with respect to, for example, SOAP and
> EDIINT. I will be pleased to work with you in this regard.
> 
> Finally I think there are both benefits and disadvantages to both ebXML
> and
> the IETF as forums for developing a "messaging" specification and welcome
> the views of both the IETF and ebXML communities on this matter.
> 
> Regards
> 
> David
> Editor IETF Trade WG & ebXML Transport, Packaging & Routing WG
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rik Drummond [mailto:drummond@onramp.net]
> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 9:54 PM
> To: David Burdett; IETF Trade (E-mail)
> Cc: ebXML Transport (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: What's the right forum for developing XML Messaging
> 
> 
> David, you are trying to force an "either one or the other" decision.
> 
> I don't think that is appropriate at this time or the only option. An
> option
> exists where team leaders and workgroup leaders coordinate between the
> ebXML
> and the IETF groups that have possible charters in this area. They are:
> EDIINT, soap, IOTP and possibly others.
> 
> I have been talking with Microsoft and IBM on the issue. it is too early
> to
> tell if we can establish coordination and hence too early to decide on
> "either one or the other".
> 
> Best regards, Rik
> team leader ebXML transport and packaging team &
> chair IETF EDIINT wg
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ebxml-transport@lists.oasis-open.org
> [mailto:owner-ebxml-transport@lists.oasis-open.org]On Behalf Of David
> Burdett
> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 6:12 PM
> To: IETF Trade (E-mail)
> Cc: ebXML Transport (E-mail)
> Subject: What's the right forum for developing XMl Messaging
> 
> 
> To Members of the IETF Trade Working Group ...
> 
> The purpose of this email is to solicit opinions from the IETF Trade
> Working
> Group on the "best" forum for developing specifications for "XML
> Messaging".
> 
> Although I have made one submission on this topic to this working group,
> interest in developing this type of specification has also arisen within
> ebXML which is a joint United Nations/OASIS development.
> 
> Clearly it does not make sense for two - probably competing -
> specifications
> to be developed in the same area. Hence this email.
> 
> The remainder of this email contains some background information on XML
> Messaging and ebXML.
> 
> I encourage members of the Trade Working Group to make known their views
> on
> these alternatives development forums.
> 
> Regards
> 
> David Burdett
> 
> Advanced Technology, CommerceOne
> 1600 Riviera Ave, Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596, USA
> Tel: +1 (925) 941 4422 or +1 (650) 623 2888;
> mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com; Web: http://www.commerceone.com
> 
> ======================================
> 
> The following provides:
> *    a brief recap on XML Messaging
> *    a more detailed explanation of ebXML, and
> *    a brief evaluation of some of the advantages and disadvantages, as I
> see it, for using either to develop specifications like "XML Messaging"
> 
> XML MESSAGING SPEC
> ==================
> On 25th January an Internet Draft titled "Requirements for XML Messaging
> Version 1.0 Release 00" was published (see
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-trade-xmlmsg-requirements-0
> 0