RE: DRAFT TRP Work Plan

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

At 01:25 PM 8/18/2000 -0700, David Burdett wrote:
> >>>Are we talking about transport bindings here? <<<
>
>No I'm talking about existing specs that address or include "messaging"
>specs that cover the same space as ebXML Messaging, rather than
>communication protocols like HTTP, SMTP.
>
>For example specs like IOTP addresses B2C commerce and already include specs
>for reliable messaging and how to use digital signatures using XML. Version
>2.0 of IOTP that is just beginning to get going is an ideal candidate in my
>mind to use ebXML TRP, but it can only do it if we include in the ebXML spec
>function. We therefore need to review IOTP (and other specs like) to see how
>they could use ebXML MEssaging as an alternative. If we don't we run the
>risk of our specs being dismissed because of missing functionality.

David,

Why is this an issue for the entire TRP WG? Seems like there is plenty on 
our collective plates. You are very close to IOTP - why don't you forward 
your thoughts to IOTP WG directly. If you don't think ebXML TRP can cut it 
for IOTP then table a proposal wrt shortcomings to this WG. I'm sure that 
it will get reviewed in detail.

Nick