RE: Trading Partner Logical Identification based on EDIFACT or X12qualifiers

[Nicholas Kassem <Nick.Kassem@eng.sun.com>]

At 07:23 PM 8/16/2000 -0400, Marc Breissinger wrote:
>I have two basic comments.
>
>The first is that I believe the vast majority of this discussion thread does
>not belong in the TR&P list -- it should be in the RegRep list.
>
>However, since this thread is here, I will add my $0.02.  That leads to my
>second comment: I disagree with Dick's suggestion as to how the interface
>should be specified.  The interface for querying of the registry should be
>specified as any other ebXML process is specified: namely within the
>constructs provided by the newly combined BP/CC groups (i.e., a collection
>of request-response messages within a 'discovery' or 'negotiation' business
>process).  That fact that it is a 'service level' process is immaterial.
>The messages (i.e., message payloads) would likely have a very strong
>relationship to the tpaML specification from the tpa group.  The messages
>would be transported between partners via ebXML Messaging Services.  The
>ebXML Messaging Service provides the wire level protocol, defines the
>transport bindings, provides for authentication upon which granular levels
>of security can be implemented and permits the use of encryption and digital
>signatures on the "[in][out]" parameters (which are really just messages).

Marc, I agree with you. I view regrep as just another Business Process. I 
have pushed for the specification of the payload messages needed to 
accomplish a registry query - but I'm still not sure there is a clear owner 
for this work item.

I also agree with Dick et.al. that we can't have regrep queries being 
pre-requisits for trading partners engaging in commerce. An exchange of 
floppies between trusted partners should suffice. As a minor data point - 
half the planet hasn't seen a telephone let alone used one. Seems that in 
the context of ebXML - would be smart to keep our eye on maintaining the 
technical barriers of entry as low as possible.


>We don't need to fall back on some other IDL/wire protocol unless we don't
>believe in what we are doing here.  If you want the ebXML RegRep interface
>to be standard, *require in the BP spec* that it be carried via some
>combination of supported ebXML protocols and security mechanisms.  That way,
>all that need be pre-negotiated is specific physical end point to which the
>initiator sends the first message.

Absolutely agree. Unfortunately the TA document goes as far as stating that 
some sort of an RPC mechanism is required to carry (as yet undefined) 
regrep query semantics?!!! So here we are specifying an XML messaging 
scheme but regrep needs an RPC (IDL, marshalling etc.) mechanism - I'm 
confused. I'm still looking forward to a technical review of the regrep 
specifications so I'm holding off my detailed comments for now.

Nick