RE: Very Rough Draft of Header Specification

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

Rik

>>> comment is premature on the "never" be a rfc<<<

I disagree.

IOTP started off as a private consortium for around a year then moved to the
IETF where it went through 4 revisions in about 15 months. YET it will only
get an "Informational RFC" status since it started outside. I even had email
from people in authority in the IETF asking me why it was not on a standards
track last November !! I gave them the explanation I've just given to the
list and they didn't disagree and didn't change it's status.

What "Informational" means is (I can't find the exact words - there's an RFC
somewhere), that it is for information it not a formal standard. I even
think that the IETF are going to merge the "Informational" status into
"Experimental".

It really is all about governance.

So, in my opinion, if the work isn't done in the IETF the IETF won't give it
its full blessing.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Rik Drummond [mailto:drummond@onramp.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 10:29 AM
To: David Burdett; ebXML Transport (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Very Rough Draft of Header Specification


Good points. However david i think your comment is premature on the "never"
be a rfc... remember i am coordinating this to see if it will be a formal
ietf thing in conjunction with ebxml..... so lets don't make predictions..
it is toooooo early... 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: 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