OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-transport message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: RE: TRP Work Plan - Version 17 Aug 00


... in an earlier email I suggested we added a comparison with existing
protocols (RosettaNet, IOTP, AS1/AS2) ... as a separate work activity. I'm
not sure we resolved this. I think we need to add it as a separate activity
1. We need to do this work to meet our requirements
2. It is a significant piece of work, so I don't want us to forget it


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Hughes [mailto:jfh@fs.fujitsu.com]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 10:11 AM
To: ebxml transport
Subject: RE: TRP Work Plan - Version 17 Aug 00

My reasons for adding it to the Work Plan as I did was:

- simplicity
- there may be vendors which will create Messaging Services, and these 
Services need to be interoperable with respect to higher layer business 

But I don't care about the packaging decision, as long as someone gets 
going on getting this interface decided for the POC and we look towards a 
final solution. Rik/Chris, how do you want to lead this resolution?


At 12:58 PM 8/18/00 -0700, David Burdett wrote:
>I firmly beleive we *don't* put the Service API spec into the messaging
>but should instead keep it as a separate document. The reasons are:
>1. The API's you use to interface with the ebXML Messaging Service is
>an implementation decision. If, for example you wanted to put the service
>a PDA then compliance with the Service Interface could be too burdensome
>2. More importantly conformance to the API is not required for
>interoperability between trading partners. All that is needed is compliance
>with the wire protocol
>3. It will make it harder to maintain and revise the document as the editor
>role will become a bottleneck
>4. There is a requirement in the Overview & Requirements document that says
>         "1) Servers/systems that support the exchange of documents shall
>treated as "black boxes"  "
>We definitely do need the spec as it will make it easier for business
>process (i.e. application) implementers to do plug-and-play with ebXML
>services from different vendors.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Hughes [mailto:jfh@fs.fujitsu.com]
>Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 2:27 PM
>To: ebxml transport
>Subject: TRP Work Plan - Version 17 Aug 00
>Based on comments from the TRP meeting this morning and several email
>messages, here is a new cut of the plan.
>Significant changes:
>- added Service API to the plan. I believe the first version must be folded
>into the overall Messaging Services Spec within the month, and some amount
>of the Service API should be approved in Tokyo.
>- I have indicated where we should release the Messaging Spec, the Service
>API drafts and the Messaging Spec to the POC.
>Other notes:
>- as before, I've made some assumptions about the Security work, so I need
>confirmation of these dates...
>- I arbitrarily assigned major version numbers to the Messaging Services
>Spec (based on approval at plenary meetings) and showed how the subordinate
>specs are being folded into it.
>- I reduced the chart scope to just the Vancouver meeting so it prints
>better. We don't know what we're doing between Vancouver and Vienna just
>- 5 days is shown for Quality Team review, with two-week Member reviews
>immediately following. We may need some time inserted to react to Quality
>Team comments...
>And apologies to Rik/Chris, as they haven't yet approved/commented on the
>work plan. I trust they will concur in our planning work during their

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC