RE: One last change request to ebXML TRP.

["Eckenfels. Bernd" <B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de>]

Hello,

> David Burdett educated me on ebXML's thinking on via and 
> traceheader. It
> does make 
> sense now that I fully understand it (I was not privy to any 
> of the ebXML
> discussions).

If we look at the most widely used messaging/routing implementations (SMTP
and IP) we will see, that both have a "Source Routing" or "Next Hop" Option
(Unix Bang-Style or Domain Routing Addresses for SMTP and IP Source Route
Option for IP) and both are rarely used and always make trouble for
implementations. Therefore I agree, that the VIA Element is not an good
Idea, we should depricate it's use.

On the Other Hand a Trace-Header (like Received in RFC822) is a good Tool
for Diagonstics. So TraceHeader should be mustUnderstand=false, but still
present. It is of course not considered in the Envelop Signature. Of course
this requires us XML-Level Signatures which are a major pain to impleent
(opposed to simple PKCS#7 Signatures like RosettaNet is doing.)

But since we already agreed in XML Sign, it is not a big issue, I think.

Greetings
Bernd