RE: TRP Work Plan - Version 17 Aug 00

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

Henry

You said below ...

"everything must come from the message itself and excludes some of it coming
from parameters of the (conceptual or real -- take you choice) service
interface"

What you mean by "coming from". Do you mean that the Service Interface will
contain some parameters that will be included in the ebXML Document Header?

David
-----Original Message-----
From: Henry Lowe [mailto:hlowe@omg.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 8:17 AM
To: David Burdett
Cc: 'Henry Lowe'; 'gvh@progress.com'; 'mwsachs@us.ibm.com'; 'Jim
Hughes'; ebxml transport
Subject: RE: TRP Work Plan - Version 17 Aug 00


David,

Please see single comment embedded below for context.

Henry
 
At 02:44 PM 08/22/2000 -0700, David Burdett wrote:
>Henry
>
>We have from the requirements and overview document ...
>>>>
>1) Servers/systems that support the exchange of documents shall be treated
>as "black boxes"  
>2) The method used to transport documents shall be completely independent
>of:
>  a) the hardware used by the server/services at each end 
>  b) the software or systems architecture of the server/services at each
the
>language used for implementation of systems and applications.
><<<
>
>I think these requirements imply that one party need have no knowledge of
>the technology used by the other party. In turn this means that:
>1. A party must be able to discover *everything* they *need* to know just
>from the message, and therefore
<hal>
I'm not sure the quote above says that everything must come from the 
message itself and excludes some of it coming from parameters of the 
(conceptual or real -- take you choice) service interface.  While I 
can't speak for Gordon, I read between the lines (always dangerous) 
that he saw some of this info coming from these parameters.
</hal>

>2. We must write the ebXML Messaging Services spec so that they can ignore
>the service interface spec **if** they want to.
>
>Please understand, that I think a service interface spec will be a very
>useful thing to have (in fact we wrote one for IOTP). I'm just arguing
that:
>1. The ebXML Messaging Services Spec should not have to rely on it
>2. Implementers don't have to built to it if they don't want to.
>
>David
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Henry Lowe [mailto:hlowe@omg.org]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 1:40 PM
>To: David Burdett
>Cc: 'gvh@progress.com'; 'mwsachs@us.ibm.com'; 'Jim Hughes'; ebxml
>transport
>Subject: RE: TRP Work Plan - Version 17 Aug 00
>
>
>David,
>
>You are stating a goal for our Headers here.  Did we ever agree 
>to this goal, i.e., all info necessary for message exchange be 
>contained in the Header?  I'm not saying this is a bad goal, but 
>if we are not all singing from the same book, we may not agree. 
>
>
>I believe Gordon pictures some additional info being conveyed 
>in the parameters of the API, be it real of conceptual.  Personally, 
>I rather like this goal as it severly constrains the API parameters 
>to be trivial.
>
>Henry
>-------------------------------------------
>At 12:50 PM 08/22/2000 -0700, David Burdett wrote:
>>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-