RE: Trading Partner Logical Identification based on EDIFA

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

At 02:38 PM 8/21/2000 -0500, Dick Brooks wrote:
>Farrukh,
>
>Firstly, I agree 100% with your KISS point.
>
>What I meant by "boundary" with regard to reliability was the notion that a
>message passes several "checkpoints" in the delivery process where
>acknowledgements (and hence reliability) can be addressed:

Using the following categories

  BP - Business Process Level i.e. the consumer of ebXML TRP
  TPRC - ebXML TP&R Core functionality
  TPRM - ebXML TP&R Reliable Messaging

Here is how I would characterize your list. Again IMO.

>- Successfully passed authentication/access control

Are you referring to, how two peer ebXML transport providers mutually 
authenticate or are you referring to how a Business Process establishes 
its' identity to a local ebXML transport provider? I believe the latter is 
a private matter and out of scope. I'm not sure whether we will tackle the 
latter in ebXML. Thoughts ?

>- Successfully sent the bits to the other end

TPRM. I think there are lots of details in this one which we should expand.

>- Successfully checked the packaging
>- Successfully checked the header structure
>- Successfully checked the header data
>- Successfully checked the signature on a header

TPRC. Need to spell this out - preseumably in the Service definition document.

>- Successfully decrypted the payload
>- Successfully verified the signature on a payload
>- Successfully checked the structure of a payload
>- Successfully "translated" the payload (from XML, X12, EDIFACT)
>- Successfully passed the translated payload to a backend system/application
>for processing
>- Backend application successfully processed the payload

BP. I would not get bogged down in this one within TR&P.

..snip