Re: [Fwd: RE: on the issue of PartyId]

[Henry Lowe <hlowe@omg.org>]

Chris,

I've not had to deal with URNs and therefore am not familiar 
with the details.  Are you saying that URNs have their own 
context and are therefore self describing?  I don't quite 
understand whether (below) you are saying that a phone number 
can be handled by a self describing URN or that it can't.

I, of course, am concerned with the case where the MS is mapped 
to CORBA and the PartyID will be a CORBA IOR (Interoperable 
Object Reference).  For the case where CORBA is used end-to-end 
(i.e., no intermediate non-CORBA transports as you might have 
with a multi-hop case), it would be advantageous to the trading 
partners to use a full blown IOR  (a URL can be mapped into a 
minimal IOR, but for the one-hop CORBA case, it would be to 
everyone's advantage to be able to have more than the minimum).
Among the ebXML participants, there are many who either use or 
sell CORBA so they may want to ensure we don't accidently do 
something which precludes the use of IORs.  

Appreciate your input on how self describing a URN is (yes, I 
know, I should read the RFC).

Best regards,
Henry
----------------------------------
At 11:49 AM 09/21/2000 -0700, Chris Ferris wrote:
>A URI provides its own context. This is what I am recommending, not that
>any particular context shall be used or excluded (although I pointed out
>that telephone # doesn't qualify as an URN which would seem to me
>to be the form of URI which would be recommended).
>
>By that I mean that:
>
><PartyId context="duns">1234567890123</PartyId>
>
>is the same as:
>
><PartyId>urn:duns:1234567890123</PartyId>
>
>and that I would recommend that the latter form be used.
>That was the jist of my proposal.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Chris
>
>Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM wrote:
>
>> I agree with Henry. I don't think we should dictate what it is, only
>> dictate a way
>> to dictate what it is.
>>
>> Scott Hinkelman
>> Senior Software Engineer, IBM Austin
>> Emerging Technologies, SWG
>> 512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
>> srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074
>>
>> Henry Lowe <hlowe@omg.org> on 09/21/2000 01:37:49 PM
>>
>> To:   "Brunner, Eric" <EBrunner@Engage.com>
>> cc:   "'Christopher Ferris'" <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>, ebxml transport
>>       <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org>
>> Subject:  RE: [Fwd: RE: on the issue of PartyId]
>>
>> While being able to say that PartyID is a URI might nice,
>> why is this necessary?  Especially if we are trying to
>> ensure that we can use all the different sorts of identifiers
>> which have been mentioned in Chris' list (below, several
>> messages down) plus telephone numbers?
>>
>> While it's not defined yet in the MS spec., the "context"
>> will happily allow us to use any of these schemes as long as
>> we define "context" appropriately.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Henry
>> --------------------------------------------
>> At 01:01 PM 09/21/2000 -0400, Brunner, Eric wrote:
>> >I concure, and (wearing another hat) am part of the group(s) working on
>> >making the e.164 numbering plan map to the dns, hence making "telephone
>> >numbers" map to URIs.
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
>> >Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 10:36 AM
>> >To: ebxml transport
>> >Subject: [Fwd: RE: on the issue of PartyId]
>> >
>> >
>> >nor this one...
>> >
>> >-------- Original Message --------
>> >Subject: RE: on the issue of PartyId
>> >Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:41:53 -0700
>> >From: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
>> >To: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
>> >
>> >The bottom line (almost) of Chris' email said ...
>> >
>> >>>>Thus, I would propose that we adopt use of a URI as the value of the
>> >PartyId element.<<<
>> >
>> >I agree for the reasons Chris gave. The only caveat I would have is that,
>> in
>> >the EDI world, Telephone numbers *are* used to uniquely identify a
>> business.
>> >I therefore think we also need to support this format.
>> >
>> >Chris is right that telephone numbers can be re-allocated to new
>> >individuals/businesses and therefore do not strictly meet the requirement
>> >for a URN on their own. However a telephone number **at a point in time**
>> is
>> >unique. Open to alternative suggestions but what might work is to define
>> >PartyId with a default type of URI, but allow an alternative of a
>> telephone
>> >number with a recommendation that the value be considered in conjunction
>> >with the date/time that the message was created in order to assure
>> >consistent results. In practice though, the probability of a clash is low.
>> >
>> >David
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
>> >Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 7:57 PM
>> >To: ebxml transport
>> >Subject: on the issue of PartyId
>> >
>> >
>> >I scrounged the archives and came up with the following postings on the
>> >topic:
>> >
>> >http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-transport/200008/msg00073.html
>> >http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-transport/200008/msg00079.html
>> >http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-transport/200008/msg00084.html
>> >http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-transport/200008/msg00093.html
>> >http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-transport/200008/msg00095.html
>> >http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-transport/200008/msg00082.html
>> >http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-transport/200008/msg00098.html
>> >http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-transport/200008/msg00107.html
>> >http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-transport/200008/msg00097.html
>> >http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-transport/200008/msg00111.html
>> >
>> >I feel that these postings capture fairly well the discussion on
>> >PartyId. I have omitted the zillion related postings on whether
>> >to regrep or not to regrep on a message send/receipt as irrelevant
>> >to the discussion.
>> >
>> >Dick's posting made a noble attempt to articulate the various
>> >points:
>> http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-transport/200008/msg00098.html
>> >
>> >Dick wrote:
>> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >One requirement:
>> >
>> >Any two trading partners should be permitted to use non-standard  values
>> for
>> >context and authority. The specs must provide an extension mechanism to
>> >allow
>> >this type of customization.  For example MIME permits header extensions
>> >through
>> >the X-hhhhhhh option, X12 has the "ZZ" qualifier, etc. Consider a possible
>> >example, using Amazon:
>> >
>> ><PartyId context="X-Amazon" authority="userid">RJB9876</PartyId>
>> >
>> >This, I believe, would address David B's concern over having parties
>> >pre-register with recognized "Name space management organizations".
>> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >David Burdett's proposal:
>> >http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-transport/200008/msg00082.html
>> >rings true with what I had been advocating (use of URI syntax and NO
>> context
>> >attribute
>> >since the URI provides its own context. I could conceive of use of an
>> >attribute
>> >which allowed typing ala BizTalk (which uses xsd:type to declare the type
>> of
>> >the
>> >value, but not necessarily the namespace) as this might be seen as useful
>> in
>> >parsing the value and would permit non-URI syntax to be used as the
>> PartyId
>> >value.
>> >
>> >I think that it is important that we understand (and agree upon) how this
>> >header element will be used within the MessagingService (let us leave the
>> >Application(Support) layer aside for the moment).
>> >
>> >       - routing: an MS might simply be serving as a "mailbox" server (as
>> >many of the
>> >       existing implementations handle the initial receipt of a message)
>> in
>> >which
>> >       case the "From" might be the "mailbox" identifier
>> >(mailto:companyX.com)
>> >       into which the MS should place the message received. It isn't
>> >important
>> >       that the MS "know" *who* companyX.com *is* (e.g. no reg/rep lookup
>> >need be
>> >       involved).  The MS might resolve the "From" id to an address
>> >(mailbox, queue
>> >       whatever) but all that is needed here is a mapping between the key
>> >(PartyId)
>> >       and some value (mailbox address).
>> >
>> >       - logging: an MS might be required to log all messages processed,
>> in
>> >which
>> >       case having the "To" and "From" logged (without having to look
>> >anything else
>> >       up in say a reg/rep or in a TPA store) along with other interesting
>> >bits
>> >       which might be found in the headers would be useful. Again, it is
>> >probably
>> >       not important that the log contain the formal company name
>> (resolved
>> >from
>> >       the logical id) in the log file. This could be processed after the
>> >fact
>> >       if it was important that this information be known to someone
>> >"reading" the
>> >       log much the same as most web sites merely log the IP address and
>> >not the
>> >       DNS resolved hostname.domainname (which is expensive and makes the
>> >site
>> >       less performant) because this can be resolved later when (and IF)
>> >the
>> >       log entry needs to be analyzed.
>> >
>> >       - delivery: if we accept David's scenario (and no, I am not;-) of a
>> >       TPA-less exchange, then the "To" might be used to map to some
>> >physical
>> >       address using some manner of I2L (URI to URL) resolution (THTTP?
>> >DNS?). In fact,
>> >       if the "logical" address were a URL (which is a URI) then no lookup
>> >would
>> >       be required at all. Again, from the MS perspective, it is NOT
>> >important
>> >       that it "know" *who* the entity/party is. The implementation would
>> >merely
>> >       have a responsibility to know how to perform the I2L resolution. If
>> >the
>> >       "key" (I) were unique (as is the case of any URI) then there is no
>> >need
>> >       to agree to which code set is used, just that it be unique so as to
>> >       enable the resolution service to map the URI to a URL. A simple
>> >hashtable
>> >       of key/value pairs could easily accomodate the mapping.
>> >
>> >       in the case where a TPA *is* present, then the "To" might be used
>> to
>> >
>> >       resolve the communication protocol specifics within the TPA itself
>> >(map the
>> >       PartyId of the Header to the PartyId of the TPA or to some other
>> >Party
>> >       identifier (possibly, the TPA should have something akin to what
>> >UDDI
>> >       has to associate a number of different identifiers with a
>> >BusinessEntity)
>> >       ...) Heck, the PartyId in the Header could be the *same* value as
>> >the
>> >       PartyId in the TPA;-) e.g. tpa:partyid:12345.
>> >
>> >       - security: again, in the absense of a TPA, one might conceive of
>> >       use of the "From" PartyId used by the MS as a key to a credentials
>> >registry which
>> >       could contain the certificate (or passwd) which the receiving party
>> >uses
>> >       to validate the signature (or passwd) with which the message was
>> >signed.
>> >       Of course, this information would be in the TPA (one would expect)
>> >in which
>> >       case the "From" might be used within the context of the TPA to find
>> >       the certificate/credentials.
>> >
>> >There may be other uses, but I for one cannot think of them (it's late;-)
>> >
>> >The bottom line is that the identifier must be unique within *some*
>> >namespace
>> >so that the MS can resolve it (somehow) to something useful in the MS
>> >processing
>> >context. It is not necessary (based upon the use cases above) that the
>> *who*
>> >be resolved from the registry which allocated the id (ISO whatever)
>> >
>> >Thus, I would propose that we adopt use of a URI as the value of the
>> >PartyId element.
>> >
>> ><element ref="PartyId" type="uriReference"/>
>> >
>> >with examples such as those (except the urn:tel: example which is to my
>> >understanding an invalid URN because it is not persistent) identified
>> >in David's email.
>> >
>> >I do NOT believe that we need to specify a set of
>> >code sets other than possibly as examples (NON-NORMATIVE) as to how
>> >PartyId may be (should be?) used. That (I believe) should be left
>> >to the parties to agree to (can you say TPA? I knew you could;-).
>> >
>> >Comments?
>> >
>> >Chris
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >    _/_/_/_/ _/    _/ _/    _/ Christopher Ferris - Enterprise Architect
>> >   _/       _/    _/ _/_/  _/  Phone: 781-442-3063 or x23063
>> >  _/_/_/_/ _/    _/ _/ _/ _/   Email: chris.ferris@East.Sun.COM
>> >       _/ _/    _/ _/  _/_/    Sun Microsystems,  Mailstop: UBUR03-313
>> >_/_/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/    _/     1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01803-0903
>