Re: MSH spec

[Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

Chris,

You are exactly right about what the tags mean in the MSH specification.
This is strictly a "what's in a name" question.

I do think that the use of the generic term "service interface" in two
different ways in the MSH spec (the CPA construct and the upper interface
of the MSH itself) is going to cause some confusion.  Since "service
interface" is already commonly used to denote the upper interface of a
layer in a protocol stack, this would be a good time to pick a new name for
the CPA construct and change the name of the tag in the MSH spec to match.

...unless of course, ebXML process and the current state of the MSH spec
get in the way.

Regards,
Marty

*************************************************************************************

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************



Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com> on 11/01/2000 08:44:00 AM

To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org, ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
Subject:  Re: MSH spec



Marty/David/All,

It would seem to me that there is only a conflict with
what TR&P has been calling the MS "Service Interface". The
header tags reflect what is currently specified in the
tpaML 1.0.6 DTD for ServiceInterface (the container for
a series of Actions through an ActionMenu) and Action
which has a Request and some Response/Exception tags
which define the messages sent/received.

I believe that the purpose of the ebXMLHeader tags should
be to enable the MSH and/or the BSI adaptor layer to
correctly identify the message's context within a given
choreography. Of course, it would also need to use a
value in the Manifest which identified the type of message
in the Payload to complete the mapping.

To my thinking, the MSH Service Interface is just a
specific/specialized instance of "ServiceInterface" which is a
generic term.

It isn't clear to me that there is a conflict.

Chris

Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM wrote:
>
> It occurs to me that there is a terminology problem with
> <ServiceInterface>.  I gather that the upper interface to the MSH is
likely
> to be called the service interface, MSH service interface, or something
> like that.  That's in accord the way the term is used in various protocol
> stacks.  However it suggests changing the name of the tag in the MSH
spec.
>
> I plan to raise this point in the terminology discussion in the TP-TRP
> session in Tokyo.  Whatever term we come up with should be the same in
the
> TP and TRP specs.
>
> Regards,
> Marty
>
>
*************************************************************************************

>
> Martin W. Sachs
> IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
> P. O. B. 704
> Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
> 914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
> Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
> Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
>
*************************************************************************************