[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: How simple is the simple in KISS
Scott I agree that versioning is important, but isn't versioning something we can handle through: 1. Defining rules for versioning as part of the Message Header definition 2. Defining rules for which version of reliable messaging, security, etc we are using through acessing a repository for a service that describes the rules that apply. Although I can see how a separate topic on versioning that covered all aspects of the problem could be useful. Thoughts? David -----Original Message----- From: srh@us.ibm.com [mailto:srh@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 7:48 AM To: David Burdett Cc: ebXML Transport (E-mail) Subject: Re: How simple is the simple in KISS David B....... >However we must NOT make it so simple that it does not meet minimum >requirements. So, for what it's worth, here are my **minimum** requirements >for ebXML Transport. We need to develop specifications for: >1. Message Headers. The additional data that must be associated with a >document so that it can be sent a third party and successfully processed - >we're working on this >2. Reliable Messaging. If for some reason, a message does not get through to >it's destination, then we can identify the problem and recover from it in a >way that does not rely on proprietary reliable messaging protocols. >3. Security. We need to know that a message has not changed and is >authentic, i.e. it has come from the organization or individual it appears >to have come from > >What does everyone else think? What I think: David, I believe you are correct for the "Transport Foundation". However, from the work with the Travel industry (OTA), at a base level and early recognition, the need for Versioning is also explicitly required. It probably applies to all of the above, but if trying to list the foundation (good idea), I suggest calling out Versioning explicitly. Then as far as the Transport Foundation, I think you have it. Thanks, Scott R. Hinkelman IBM Austin Architecture and Development, Industry XML/Java Standards Office: 512-823-8097 TL793-8097 Home: 512-930-5675 Cell: 512-940-0519 srh@us.ibm.com Fax: 512-838-1074 David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com> on 03/05/2000 11:53:45 PM To: "ebXML Transport (E-mail)" <ebXML-Transport@lists.oasis-open.org> cc: Subject: How simple is the simple in KISS There has been a lot of recent discussion about KISS on the list that I whole-heartedly support. However we must NOT make it so simple that it does not meet minimum requirements. So, for what it's worth, here are my **minimum** requirements for ebXML Transport. We need to develop specifications for: 1. Message Headers. The additional data that must be associated with a document so that it can be sent a third party and successfully processed - we're working on this 2. Reliable Messaging. If for some reason, a message does not get through to it's destination, then we can identify the problem and recover from it in a way that does not rely on proprietary reliable messaging protocols. 3. Security. We need to know that a message has not changed and is authentic, i.e. it has come from the organization or individual it appears to have come from I know that requirements 2 and 3 are not **always** required, but I think that in B2B they will be so frequently required that we will not be get widespread adoption of ebXML Transport without them. What does everyone else think? David Advanced Technology, CommerceOne 4400 Rosewood Drive 3rd Fl, Bldg 4, Pleasanton, CA 94588, USA Tel: +1 (925) 520 4422 or +1 (650) 623 2888; mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com; Web: http://www.commerceone.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC