RE: Very Rough Draft of Header Specification

[Henry Lowe <hlowe@omg.org>]

Format is no big deal to me one way or the other.  But, as ebXML 
is sponsored by UN\CEFACT, it would be my guess that come June of 
next year when this winds up, UN/CEFACT will pick up the documentation 
and make into standards.  If this is right (and I might be way off 
in left field), we'd save ourselves (or at least the editors) a lot 
of work if we used their format from the outset.  Might want to check 
with Bob Suttor or Ray Walker.

Best regards,
Henry
-------------------------------
At 12:17 PM 03/15/2000 -0600, Rik Drummond wrote:
>that is my take, we use the ietf stuff as the basis.... that is not what the
>req. group says in their document. i will talk with them..... very best
>regards,rik
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Burdett [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 11:35 AM
>To: Rik Drummond; ebXML Transport (E-mail)
>Subject: RE: Very Rough Draft of Header Specification
>
>
>Using the same layout, fonts, etc should not be a problem. However I think
>we can usefully copy the structure of standards produced by, for example,
>the IETF. Especially if:
>1. We think we might eventually submit the document to the IETF as an
>Internet Draft and even eventually an **informational RFC** - it can
>**never** be a "proposed standard" or "standard" as we're doing our work
>outside of the IETF
>2. They have some good ideas, for example on the use of MUST, SHOULD, MUST
>NOT, etc - they really help to tighten up a specification
>
>Does this make sense?
>
>David
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rik Drummond [mailto:drummond@onramp.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 8:35 AM
>To: David Burdett; ebXML Transport (E-mail)
>Subject: RE: Very Rough Draft of Header Specification
>
>
>David you have been busy!!!
>
>The requirements teams specifies that their document format is the one
>everyone should use. Do we want to support that? Is this that format? any
>issues?  best regards, 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: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 8:45 PM
>To: ebXML Transport (E-mail)
>Subject: Very Rough Draft of Header Specification
>
>
>Folks
>
>I attach a very rough draft of the Header Specification. The roughest area
>is probably the Data Dictionary as I know there are inconsistencies in this
>section when compared with the Header Structures section - the latter is the
>more accurate and over rules what is currently in the Data Dictionary - it's
>just that I've run out of time and thought it better to get this to
>everyone a day earlier so that you can read it.
>
>The way the spec was developed was:
>1. Identify the data requirements from our requirements documet
>2. Do a quick review of the header classification work that John I did, to
>see if there were any gaps.
>
>What we absolutely must do (but haven't yet) is to do a rigorous comparison
>of this spec with other specs (BizTalk, AS1, AS2 etc) to make sure that we
>can map between them. This should then give a migration path from these
>standards to the approach we are developing.
>
>John Ibbotson is also planning to do a sample DTD so that we can see how
>this all fits together
>
>David
>PS If anyone wants a PDF version please let me know.
> <<ebXML Message Header Specification v0-10.doc>>
>
>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
>
>