RE: How simple is the simple in KISS

[David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com>]

I agree it's an architecture WG issue, but we must not ignore it either.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: srh@us.ibm.com [mailto:srh@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 8:54 AM
To: David Burdett
Cc: ebXML Transport (E-mail)
Subject: RE: How simple is the simple in KISS




David B.,
Yes, I believe so. Versioning can be facilitated through rules and
conventions.
In the bigger scheme of things it is an overall Architecture issue that
demands
consistency spanning
Transport - Registry - Core / BP, and could be an issue to be addressed
by the Architecture WG.

I you an I agree on this, I will propose this as an issue in the
Architecture WG.

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 03/06/2000 10:24:30 AM

To:   Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, David Burdett
      <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
cc:   "ebXML Transport (E-mail)" <ebXML-Transport@lists.oasis-open.org>
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