Tracking Log RE: discussion priorities

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

David/Henry

Version 0.5 of the spec had a tracking log ... perhaps we should revisit it.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Henry Lowe [mailto:hlowe@omg.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 7:24 AM
To: David RR Webber
Cc: Henry Lowe; richard drummond; ebXML Transport (E-mail)
Subject: Re: discussion priorities


David,

Sorry I didn't explain the problem clearly before. 
Glad you agree it needs to be dealt with.  Unfortunately, 
I don't think we'll have a solution before the ConCall 
today in 40 minutes :-(

You're right about the tracking log, too.  Thought I mentioned 
it somewhere, but in case I didn't, you're right.  Probably 
should go in Headers somewhere -- you can probably get away 
with sticking it in the Header extension which is only needed 
for non-point-to-point -- that gets it out of the way (smaller, 
leaner messages) for many transactions.

Best regards,
Henry
--------------------------------------------------
At 03:41 AM 08/24/2000 -0400, David RR Webber wrote:
>Message text written by Henry Lowe
>>Thus, 
>a typical scenario would be as above -- browser to Portal 
>which forwards on to Sears based on routing information in 
>the Header.  The problem is, the current document doesn't 
>have this routing info.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>Henry,
>
>I totally agree - I've been saying this for a year - since 
>Microsoft came out with Biztalk and all the persistent
>info' is taken away from the wire format.  This is a disaster
>and a major hole.
>
>Notice MIME has tracking info in it - and Apache servers
>supply this also.
>
>I'd like to see the header contain a tracking log section.
>
>Marty was also alluding to this for TPA - he has a bucket
>for it - but no deals on mechanisms.
>
>The huge issue is that a 3rd party can pass something to
>2nd party - who then passes to trading partner who assumes
>he is a trusted party - and now is recieving ((unknowingly) 
>content from an untrusted source.
>
>DW.