RE: TRP Work Plan - Version 17 Aug 00

[David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com>]

Gordon

I agree that awareness of the Interface is a benefit. I disagree that
"implementations of the wire protocol will require semantic knowledge that
is not imparted stricly from the fields in the header".

If we can't fully define, in our spec, the meaning or semantics behind ...
1. each field in the header
2. the meanings implied when these fields occur in combination within a
header
3. the meanings implied when messages (e.g. a normal message and it's ack)
are received in a specific sequence

... then, IMO, we are not doing our job properly.

If we REQUIRE that particular type of interface is used to make an ebXML
Messaging Service Spec work, then we are creating an additional barrier to
its use.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon van Huizen [mailto:gvanhuiz@progress.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 4:07 AM
To: David Burdett
Cc: 'mwsachs@us.ibm.com'; 'Jim Hughes'; ebxml transport
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-