Re: trp and soap

[christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>]

Yes, all of the ebXML header elements are with
the exception of ApplicationHeaders which has been
(or will be) removed.

Cheers,

Chris
Phil Zimmerman wrote:
> 
> Rik,
> 
> Am I correct in assuming (carefully using this term ;)) that the ebXMLHeader will still
> contain the manifest which is missing in SOAP with attachments?
> 
> -Phil
> 
> Rik Drummond wrote:
> 
> >  As you are aware, ebXML transport, routing and packaging was approached by
> > the workgroup in w3c who would become the xml protocol workgroup in may 2000
> > to discuss convergence between soap and ebXML transport.        Soon afterwards
> > ebXML assigned dick brooks of 8760 to be the official trp representative on
> > the xp workgroup. Several intellectual property issues existed with soap
> > 1.0, 1.1 and soap with attachments that precluded trp from using soap.
> > Additionally while soap 1.0 was not usable for ebXML trp because it lacked
> > the ability to move any type of digital data soap 1.1 and soap with
> > attachment added capabilities very technically similar to ebXML trp message
> > structure in the subsequent versions. During our Vancouver meeting a highly
> > qualified team representing soap and trp evaluated the possibilities of trp
> > using soap. The investigation showed that to implement trp in soap would
> > require no logic changes or changes to the meaning or the existing trp data
> > elements in the header - except in one ?possible? instance the handling of
> > error status.
> >
> > While this is somewhat of a dangerous course this late in the development of
> > the specification we felt the benefit far outweigh the dangers. Benefits
> > such as fewer standards to support by vendors, more investment by software
> > vendors in ebXML mhs because of the alignment of soap and mhs and less
> > market confusion and it will have a better change of becoming the vendor
> > neutral inter-exchange, SME and le transport of choice.
> >
> > We presented our conclusions to the ebXML steering group on Tuesday and said
> > we could technically include soap in the ebXML trp specification under the
> > following conditions:
> > -       we were given an additional 4 week to complete the spec -until march 19
> > -       we were allocated key full time resources from our team to the project
> > until march 19
> > -       we were allocated key soap experts until march 19
> > -       all intellectual property issues were resolved by feb 16
> > -       we would be allowed to not address any outstanding technical comments
> >         made on the existing version .93 message handling services specification -
> > they
> >         would have to be resubmitted against the next version after soap was
> > included - if they still existed
> > -       Finally, even though this is a major cosmetic change to the spec, not a
> >         logic or header element change, we would only be required to go through one
> >         review cycle before plenary approval.
> > -       The trp team approved the effort
> >
> > As of feburary 16, 2001 all condition have been met.
> >
> > We are now diverting all resources to aligning soap and ebXML packaging for
> > final approval of this modified spec in Vienna
> >
> > With this in mind and to accomplish these aggressive goals I suggest a few
> > rules on how we manage the spec in our work group.
> > -       we will not address any not hitherto include functionality in this spec
> > -       we will not clutter the email list with topics which do not directly
> > pertain to accomplish this goal
> > -       Ian jones has been assigned by the trp group as proctor to curtail any
> > discussions not following the above two points
> >
> > The work effort will progress as follows:
> > -       three or four expert form trp and soap will convert the spec to
> > incorporate soap 1.1 and soap with attachments
> > -       once that has happened we will assign two readers to look for technical
> > issues or introduced errors
> > -       it will be given to our trp editing team for editing
> > -       it will be released to the list for review and comments
> > -       final edits will be incorporated from list discussion
> > -       the trp group will vote on whether or not to release it for ebXML wide
> > review
> > -       submitted to qr team on march 19 or earlier
> > -       release for ebXML wide review soon after
> > -       incorporate comments from review
> > -       plenary vote.
> >
> > To facilitate the specification passing qr team review I have asked the qr
> > formally assign a person to continuously trace progress over the weeks to
> > ensure that any issues that they have, and we can address, or addressed
> > before qr review.
> >
> > If you have questions please send me email via the trp list serv.
> >
> > Best regards, rik
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> > "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-transport-request@lists.ebxml.org
begin:vcard 
n:Ferris;Christopher 
tel;work:781-442-3063
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Sun Microsystems, Inc;XML Technology Development
adr:;;One Network Drive;Burlington;Ma;01824-0903;USA
version:2.1
email;internet:chris.ferris@east.Sun.COM
title:Sr. Staff Engineer
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Christopher Ferris
end:vcard