DRAFT 3: ebXML transport - things we have agreed on over the last ninemonths

[richard drummond <rvd2@worldnet.att.net>]

added one line before -69, 115, 120 - manifest....



Chris and I have discussed what we as a group have agreed to over the last
nine months. Those of you who are 'old' members of the group please review
and let us know if we are wrong in our memory. You do not have
to respond if it is ok. If you have anything to add or want to make
adjustments please let Chris and I know.

Best regards, the Team Lead couple :-) ... Rik

- no more iotp discussions
- the current ms spec is the functionality expectations of this spec. it
  should not be expanded
- reliable messaging discussion follows the release of this spec for
  comments to the ebXML community
- security is part of another spec at this time
- business process interaction with the ms system is a future discussion
  item or should take place in the process team... not here
- we will have transport binding in an appendix
- we will do a textual service interface example
- open issues on ms spec are:
         - mime format
         - character set
         - to / from field specification


Everyone please review these:
- 69, 115, 120 - Manifest items will include only payload MIME parts at this
time e.g.
  references to header elements within the manifest will be deferred
- 122 - defer further discussion of what goes in TPAInfo section. Go with
        what we have defined thus far
- 137, 140 - defer further discussion regarding delivery semantics for RM
spec
- 141 - section 4 should be removed pending delivery of security spec
- 151 - routing header discussion deferred until RM spec discussion
- 152 - defer discussion of service interface until f2f in Dallas
- 158 - partyId context values discussion should be deferred. sub-team to
provide PartyId definition
- 159 - deliverytime, responsetime and ackto elements are in TPA
- error handling will be addressed after we release the current version of
MS spec for review.
  Start with David's strawman