Re: TRP Work Plan - Version 17 Aug 00

[mwsachs@us.ibm.com]

Gordon,

Absolutely true!  I keep telling people that there will eventually need to
be an interoperability specification for the run-time in addition to the
messaging service and trading partner specifications.  I view it as
something like the RosettaNet Implementation Framework.

Regards,
Marty

*************************************************************************************

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************



"Gordon van Huizen" <gvanhuiz@progress.com> on 08/22/2000 07:06:59 AM

Please respond to gvh@progress.com

To:   David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
cc:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "'Jim Hughes'" <jfh@fs.fujitsu.com>,
      ebxml transport <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org>
Subject:  Re: TRP Work Plan - Version 17 Aug 00





David Burdett wrote:
> I think it should be possible for two parties communicating using the TRP
> spec to achieve COMPLETE interoperability without implementing ANY of the
> Interface spec - i.e. conformance to the wire protocol alone should
suffice.
> Do you agree?

My assertion would be that successfully achieving interoperable
implementations of the wire protocol will require semantic knowledge
that is not imparted stricly from the fields in the header themselves
and can benefit from awareness of the Interface. But that's just a
hunch, since we aren't "there" yet. Regardless, the two levels must be
kept in synch for a developer to stand a chance of implementation, as
well as for us to actually get the spec work done. Witness the deltas
that are appearing elsewhere.

-gvh-