RE: RE: Regarding the Thursday ebXML Conf Call

["Dick Brooks (E)" <dick@8760.com>]

Mark,

Several people on this list (David, Rik, John, Ian) have provided reasons
why MIME appears to offer the best solution for TR&P. I agree with them;
MIME was designed to transport mixed payload data streams, XML is a
wonderful transfer syntax, but appears to be inferior to MIME as a mixed
payload packaging/enveloping technology.

MIME is mature, widely deployed and works with HTTP, E-mail and other
transports. It would require a significant effort to build a pure XML
packaging/enveloping solution equivalent to MIME. Perhaps XML could be
cohersed into performing packaging/enveloping functions against mixed
payloads. However, the people I work with in the business community have not
expressed concern over "XML purity". They want to send their business
transactions reliably and securely over the Internet, NOW. They know it's
possible to send XML, X12, EDIFACT and binary formatted data today via
E-mail, HTTP and FTP. What are the benefits to them of waiting for a "pure"
XML solution to appear verus using what works now? Even if a pure XML
solution appeared next week what would convince them to abandon their
existing solutions to adopt the pure XML solution?

The people working in the ebXML MR&T group are acutely aware of the need and
urgency of this situation. We are working very hard to find a solution that
addresses the business and technical needs in the shortest time frame. MIME
appears to meet both needs now.

Dick Brooks
http://www.8760.com/


-----Original Message-----
From: Rik Drummond [mailto:drummond@onramp.net]
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 9:44 PM
To: David Burdett; 'Mark CRAWFORD'; Dick Brooks; kit@mitre.org;
ebXML-Transport@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: rawlins@metronet.com
Subject: RE: RE: Regarding the Thursday ebXML Conf Call


we in the transport group have always assumed we would be transport
independent..... that means email, http... etc.... rik

-----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, March 03, 2000 12:33 PM
To: 'Mark CRAWFORD'; dick@8760.com; kit@mitre.org; drummond@onramp.net;
ebXML-Transport@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: rawlins@metronet.com
Subject: RE: RE: Regarding the Thursday ebXML Conf Call


Mark

You ask ...
>>>Although I personally can't understand why anyone would want to use an
antiquated technology such as e-mail to forward XML, especially in a
business to
business exchange<<<

Mark, the reason is that it saves businesses money.

For example take one of our clients - General Motors. They have 30,000
suppliers. They do 80% of their business with 20% of their suppliers. The
other 20% of business they do with the other 80% of suppliers (i.e. it's the
usual 80-20 rule). However the smaller suppliers are not automated and cost
a lot in administrative time (i.e. people time) to work with them.

The way big companies like GM save money is by automating document
communications wiht **all** of their suppliers.

... BUT ...

... some of those suppliers are small 1-2 person businesses. They have
neither the skills nor the cost justification to invest in technology to
support on-line real-time HTTP connections. If you're lucky, many of them
now have email account, and if not that then a fax.

So we need to define a "messaging" approach that can scale to work with all
these types of business.

We need to support email for solid business reasons.

David
PS I'm just starting to catch up on my emails.


-----Original Message-----
From: Mark CRAWFORD [mailto:mcrawfor@mail.lmi.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 12:29 PM
To: dick@8760.com; kit@mitre.org; drummond@onramp.net;
ebXML-Transport@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: rawlins@metronet.com
Subject: Re:RE: Regarding the Thursday ebXML Conf Call


Dick,

    What was presented to us during our call today was that you were
selecting
mime as "the" ebXML solution.  If that is not the case, then we don't have
an
issue.  Although I personally can't understand why anyone would want to use
an
antiquated technology such as e-mail to forward XML, especially in a
business to
business exchange, I do see the need to accomodate folks desires.  If on the
other hand, you are selecting mime as "the" ebXML solution, then I think
that
you will loose participation and support of the bulk of the XML community.

    Mark
Mark Crawford
Research Fellow
______
LMI Logistics Management Institute
2000 Corporate Ridge, McLean, VA 22102-7805
(703) 917-7177   Fax (703) 917-7518
mcrawfor@lmi.org
http://www.lmi.org
"Opportunity is what you make of it"



____________________Reply Separator____________________
Subject:    RE: Regarding the Thursday ebXML Conf Call
Author: "Dick Brooks" <dick@8760.com>
Date:       3/2/00 2:12 PM

Rik, it appears the Requirements group needs to be made aware that people
will want to send XML documents via E-mail and E-mail is not a W3C
specification.

Dick


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ebxml-transport@lists.oasis-open.org
[mailto:owner-ebxml-transport@lists.oasis-open.org]On Behalf Of Kit
(Christopher) Lueder
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 1:30 PM
To: Rik Drummond; Ebxml Transport
Cc: Mike Rawlins; Mark CRAWFORD
Subject: Regarding the Thursday ebXML Conf Call


Hi,
Regarding the EBXML Transport/R/P conference today, my understanding is
that the group is pursuing a mime-based envelope structure? I mentioned
that at the EBXML Requirements teleconference, which happened to be
immediately after the TRP teleconf, and they weren't happy about that
direction and hoped the TRP group will revisit that decision. In
particular, it was suggested that there is an EBXML requirement for all
EBXML specifications to be compliant with W3C technical specificatons.
(Though Mike Rawlins said that the transport may be an exception.) I
cite the relevant section from the EBXML Requirements document, which is
to be released to the full EBXML body for review this Monday.

Kit.


1.2.1 ebXML Vision
The ebXML vision is to deliver:

"A single set of internationally agreed upon technical specifications
that consist of common XML semantics and related document structures to
facilitate global trade."

This single set of ebXML technical specifications will create a Single
Global Electronic Market.  To create this single global electronic
market, this single set of ebXML technical specifications:

 - is fully compliant with W3C XML technical specifications holding a
recommended status,
 - provides for interoperability within and between ebXML compliant
trading partner applications,
 -  maximizes interoperability and efficiency while providing a
transition path from accredited electronic data interchange (EDI)
standards and developing XML business standards, and
 - will be submitted to an appropriate internationally recognized
standards body for accreditation as an international standard.



--
    _/    _/             Kit C. J. Lueder
   _/   _/         _/   The MITRE Corp.         Tel:  703-883-5205
  _/_/_/    _/  _/_/_/ 1820 Dolley Madison Bl  Cell: 703-577-2463
 _/   _/   _/    _/   Mailstop W658           FAX:  703-883-3383
_/    _/  _/    _/   McLean, VA 22102        Mail: kit@mitre.org
Worse than an unanswered question is an unquestioned answer.