RE: PartyId and Context; Scott agrees with David's proposal

[Scott Hinkelman <srh@us.ibm.com>]

David, -yes, what you are proposing is essentially what I have said.

On vacation and behind in this discussion, but my final position is that I
agree on David's
SUMMARY below. It addresses my concern, and allows URIs as default.

Thanks,
Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
XML Industry Enablement
IBM e-business Standards Strategy
512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074



"Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com> on 12/15/2000 03:45:06 PM

To:   "'Duane Nickull'" <duane@xmlglobal.com>, Christopher Ferris
      <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
cc:   Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Charlie Fineman
      <fineman@arzoon.com>, ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org,
      ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
Subject:  RE: PartyId and Context



Folks

I do hope this doesn't become as long a thread as last time, but here goes.
What I want to do is show a number of examples that describe what I think
we
should do and then ask for views on whether this makes sense.

EXAMPLE 1
Consider this example:

<From context=DUNS>45637284</From>

What this means is that the number "45637284" belongs to the set of numbers
allocated by "David's Unique Numbering System". The problem I have is how
do
you distinguish this from an **identical** From element where "DUNS" means
Dun & Bradstreets Numbering system? You can only do this if you now the
intention of the sender. Relying on the CPAId doesn't work since unless
that
is also globally unique, then the number will be have been allocated by the
sender and you don't know who the sender is without looking at the CPA - a
circular argument.

EXAMPLE 2
Consider this example:

<From>urn:duns.com:id:45637284</From>

What this means is that someone has registered the domain name "duns.com"
as
well as a urn structure to go with . If we go to IANA, we can see who has
registered "duns.com" probably Dun & Bradsteet we then know **completely
unambiguously** who allocated the number and what it means and who it
identifies. "David" would not be able to validly use "duns.com" since it
would have already been "taken" by Dun & Bradstreet.

EXAMPLE 3
Consider this example:

<From usercontext=DUNS>45637284</From>

If we define usercontext as meaning "a code that identifies a set of
numbers
that have allocated or devised by a party" ... with the following
explanation ... "the values of usercontext are not necessarily unique. Two
or more parties may allocate the same value and associate it with different
sets of numbers. This means that sender or recipient of a message that
contains a usercontext, MUST be sure that a recipient of the message knows
unambiguously the party that is being identified. How this is done is
outside the scope of this spec".

SUMMARY
What I propose is that we allow both example 2 and 3. Specifically:
1. If no usercontext is present then the content of the From (or To) must
be
a URI.
2. If usercontext is present then the recipients of the message must be
able
to unambiguously determine who sent the message by methods mutually agreed.

Does this make sense?

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:duane@xmlglobal.com]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 12:23 PM
To: Christopher Ferris
Cc: Scott Hinkelman; Charlie Fineman; Burdett, David;
ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org; ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Re: PartyId and Context


All:

I see problems arising with the use of one and one only method for
generating a Party ID.  We need to allow multiple schemes for
identifying parties.

In the cases where multiple SME's are using a single ASP for a web based
onramp to the ebXML infrastructure, but they may wish to change ASP's or
eventually get their own system, this will not work.  When a company
looses their URI - do they loose their Party ID?

URI's by themselves will not work.  They could be one such method for
uniquely identifying a party but not the end all and be all.

Duane Nickull