RE: David's concerns

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

John

I appreciate your reply. The need for some sort of agreement between the
parties involved in eCommerce is unquestioned and I agree that there is
synergy between TPAml and ebXML. I also appreciate that you've offered it
for consideration by ebXML rather than OASIS.

You also draw parallels between SOAP becoming a "standard" and TPAml. I
think though that there is one crucial difference in that SOAP is
self-contained and does not rely on any other standard and new versions of
SOAP will likely be developed as part of the W3C XML Protocol Activity.

On the other hand, TPAml is being put forward as the way in which agreements
surrounding ebXML based eCommerce could be negotiated. This means, IMO, that
"TPAml" and ebXML are highly coupled and cannot be developed independently.
As I stated in my earlier email, I think that the content of the Trading
Partner Agreeement is dependent on the specifications being developed inside
ebXML and we can't develop one without considering the other.

I think therefore that we must develop the existing ebXML specs and whatever
"TPA like" specs we develop in parallel. I don't think that the existing
spec can meet the need for an ebXML "TPAml" since it is IBM proprietary.
Using TPAml, however as one of the major inputs into an ebXML derived
equivalent is another matter. Is this what you're thinking?

Regards

David

-----Original Message-----
From: john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com [mailto:john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 5:31 AM
To: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
Cc: sutor@us.ibm.com; srh@us.ibm.com
Subject: David's concerns


Rather than  add further inserts to posts on the server, I thought I'd
address the tone of David's concerns directly.

Over the last few months it has become increasingly apparent that TPAml
has considerable synergy with the aims and objectives of ebXML both within
the TRP and BP working groups. It therefore seemed appropriate to offer the
specification as a technology to ebXML rather than let it stay with OASIS
where we originally submitted it in February. The response at the Boston
face to face and the subsequent reaction from Bruce in organising a meeting
at DISA confirms this.

The offering of  a technology or specification for public scrutiny is part
of the standards process so I am puzzled by David's assertion that he is
surprised the TRP group is accepting something proprietary from IBM. If
that were the case, then we would not have allowed Fujitsu to make their
valuable contribution on reliable messaging to the meeting in Boston. Also
the likes of SOAP that started as a proprietary technology would not see
the light of day as a standard. At the time we released the TPAml spec to
OASIS there was some criticism of IBM regarding the choice of OASIS rather
than ebXML. We have now addressed that.

As Marty states in his note, the TPAml spec is open for discussion and the
contribution of everyone involved in ebXML from whatever working group is
most welcome.

Cheers,
John

MQSeries Technical Strategy & Planning,
IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park,
Winchester, SO21 2JN

Tel: +44 (0)1962 815188
Fax: +44 (0)1962 816898
Notes Id: John Ibbotson/UK/IBM
email: john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com