RE: trp and soap

[Rik Drummond <rvd2@worldnet.att.net>]

yes...no loss of functionality is expected

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Zimmerman [mailto:pzimmer@bea.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 11:11 AM
To: Rik Drummond
Cc: ebXML Transport (E-mail)
Subject: Re: trp and soap


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