RE: Message Service Interface

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

Rik,

I don't need this for November. However, the argument that a UML based MSI 
definition could contribute to the "proof of correctness" of the MS spec. 
may have some merit. It certainly  can't hurt. It may also formalize the MS 
& BP layering. Ultimately though, we want to converge on inter-operable MS 
implementations & the MSI work is somewhat orthogonal to that effort, IMO.

Nick

At 06:52 AM 8/29/2000 -0500, richard drummond wrote:
>we have always talked about stealing some thing from idl or jms and using it
>for an example. unless nick needs this for the november prototype.... i
>think we just add it to our list of future things to do.... it has been on
>that list from the beginning.... this means it does not need to be on your
>list at the moment..... best regards, rik
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Hughes [mailto:jfh@fs.fujitsu.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 3:33 AM
>To: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
>Subject: Message Service Interface
>
>
>Since there seems consensus that this Message Service Interface should be
>treated as separate work for the time being (and maybe folded into the
>Messaging Spec later... or not), could the group decide who is the editor
>and who will make an initial strawman proposal? Without something to look
>at, it's hard to get going.
>
>Alternatively, we may need to have a requirements discussion about this
>before someone invests time. I'm seeing differing opinions about what this
>interface is and should accomplish.
>
>I'm happy to add it to the Work Plan once there is a concrete proposal for
>a work item with deliverables, start/stop date, responsible party, etc.
>
>Jim
>
>At 03:39 PM 8/28/2000 -0500, richard drummond wrote:
> >we have always said we will do a message service interface. it need not be
> >part of the existing documents.... but it is part of our effort... rik
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Jim Hughes [mailto:jfh@fs.fujitsu.com]
> >Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 11:24 AM
> >To: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> >Subject: Revised TRP Work Plan
> >
> >
> >Revised Work Plan attached, based on discussions last week. Changes:
> >
> >- deleted the line for "Service API", since it is not clear that there will
> >be a service interface specified in the document (and certainly not called
> >an "API"!).
> >
> >- moved out approval of change to Messaging Services v0-1 by one week (to
> >this Thursday), with the week shift taken out of a later review of v0-3 (in
> >order to still make the Tokyo meeting approval date).
> >
> >- since we probably will still have work to do on the base MS document this
> >week and there are some fundamental issues open for RM, I moved the
> >completion date for RM v0-8 out by a week.
> >
> >Other comments:
> >
> >- could someone please confirm the dates for starting security work? The
> >dates shown are just my guesses.
> >
> >- if the various editors could either use the document revision numbers
> >shown in the Work Plan, or propose alternates, it will be appreciated. We
> >need to keep the Work Plan consistent with doc numbers.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Jim