[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: Should ebXML standards be based on XML?
Matt Basically I agree with you - we should use MIME *and* XML - this was the effective conclusion of my note. Some comments below. David -----Original Message----- From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 11:25 AM To: David Burdett Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com Subject: RE: Should ebXML standards be based on XML? Why must issues such as encryption and transport even be contemplated now? >>Since there is a real need for it.<< If we do well in designing the message format by using a combination of MIME and XML, it will be trivial to add the transport and encryption mechanisms later. >>I agree<< It is only remotely beneficial to waste time on these components for the sake of things that should be built in, like content and receipt verification, and process flow. If MIME+XML is specified as the lingua franca for messaging, we already have a transport mechanism that supports both (HTTP). This transport mechanism also supports certificate based encryption, (SSL,TLS, etc.). Other transport mechanisms can also use SSL. The SSL approach is nice because the decryption is handled pretty seamlessly, so applications would not be limited to a few headers of elements that were left unencrypted for the routing of processing decision stages. >>I agree, but when the message gets to a server, then it is unencrypted. There is a need to be able to encrypt documents in a way so that they can tunnel through servers without being decrypted - S/MIME handles this nicely.<< I think the key is to establish a chain of preferred protocols, sort of like how web browsers will often try to negotiate a HTTP/1.1 connection, but can always fall back to HTTP/1.0. ebXML should define a sequence of accepted encryption+transport schemes, and have the sending software able to handle them all. Then, the receiver can implement what he/she likes for accepting transmissions - and the sender can simply reject to send to receivers who do not meet their security baseline. >> I think we either need "negotiation" - which means we do it every time we make a connection, or we need "discovery" which means there is a standard way to discover how to communicate which can then be cached.<< my $0.02 (CAD) -- Matthew MacKenzie VP R&D / CTO XML Global Technologies, Inc. David Burdett <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent by: email@example.com 14/04/2000 08:38 AM To: "Kit (Christopher) Lueder" <firstname.lastname@example.org> cc: ebxml <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: RE: Should ebXML standards be based on XML? Kit The bottom line on this is that **current** XML standards do not **yet** meet **all** our requirements. Please note the emphasis. Specifically, it does not support encryption, which is a real business requirement. Below I present the choices we have and then an analysis of each one ... which leads to a conclusion. If you disgree with any of this reasoning please state clearly the reasons why. I am also copying this to the Requirements group so that they can also understand the choices we are *having* to make. Regards David CHOICES We have a few choices for going forward: 1. Wait until the W3C develops the standards that we need. On encryption this could be 12? 18? months away. 2. Develop an ebXML but leave gaps where the w3C cannot (yet) provide solutions. 3. Develop our own "XML" equivalent to cover the gaps, e.g. for encryption. 4. Adopt an existing accepted standard method of encryption as our one and only ever solution. The only one I know of is S/MIME. 5. Adopt a hybrid approach. Specifically, we do an "XML only solution" when encryption is not needed and some other (S/MIME?) when it is. 6. Adopt a non-XML solution in the short term, then when the W3C or other standards groups have developed technology that meets our needs move towards it. KIT. Do you agree that this is a comprehensive list of alternatives - please suggest others if you think not ? ANALYSIS Option 1 - Wait for the W3C If we wait for the W3C to develop standards before we can completely specify ebXML transport, then we should stop NOW, contribute to these other efforts to speed them and then reform later when the missing standards are becoming more stable. This means that no implementations of ebXML Transport could start until say at least 12 months away. This is unacceptable in my view - frankly if ebXML is not going to deliver anything useful for 18 months, then my company has much better use to make of time. Option 2 - Leave gaps until the W3C develops a solution Some of the gaps (e.g. encyrption) are reall business requirements (e.g. for C1). This means we would have to devise our own separate solution to meet the need. However this would non-interoperable with other solutions and would require implementers to devise two solutions. Option 3 - Develop our own XML technology to cover the gaps I would seriously question that the ebXML group has the appropriate skills to develop, for example, an XML based encryption approach. If we did try, we will probably get it wrong and anyway it would compete with the W3C approach. This is also unacceptable as we should only do things we have the skill to do and we shouldn't compete with the W3C. Option 4 - Adopt an existing standard method as our one and only solution. This will allow us to continue working now on ebXML and will have the "benefit" that we will never change it ... except that existing standards change anyway over time. So even if, for example we only ever wanted to use MIME, we would have to change at some point in the future as MIME evolves. I think we can't ever commit to a single "standard". Option 5 - Adopt a hybrid aproach. This is unacceptable, at least in the short term, since it means that implementers would *have* to develop two alternative solutions at the same time when there is no need. It would also overly complicate the solution and delay its adoption. Option 6 - Adopt a non-XML solution in the short term. This is like Option 3 in that we can continue to move forward immediately. However it recognizes that existing standards evolve and new standards are developed. Therefore, when "good" new standards are developed that meet our requirements, e.g. for encryption. Then they can be adopted. CONCLUSION It is my honest opinion that the W3C and the XML community in general will, over the next 12-18 months, develop XML based solutions that will meet all our requirements. I also anticipate that we will more than likely adopt them in a new version of the ebXML transport. But until then, we MUST NOT make the completion of our work dependent on the development of standards that not only do not yet exist - no work has even started on them. I think therefore that option 6 is the only viable approach we can take. If you disagree with my analysis, please state clearly the reasons why and what alternative "choice" you think meets our needs better. Regards David -----Original Message----- From: Kit (Christopher) Lueder [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 5:39 AM To: ebxml Cc: ebxml-requirements Subject: Should ebXML standards be based on XML? There is an active debate currently going on at the ebXML Transport/Routing/Packaging list about whether the ebXML standards should be based on XML. The current direction of that group is to use MIME for the outer envelope, not XML. They are proceeding with a specification that will be brought forward for vote, but that seems like a pretty late time to ask for a change in direction, if you disagree with their approach. If you have any concerns, this may be an opportune time to express them. Kit Lueder. MITRE. -- _/ _/ Kit C. J. Lueder _/ _/ _/ The MITRE Corp. Tel: 703-883-5205 _/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/ 1820 Dolley Madison Bl Cell: 703-577-2463 _/ _/ _/ _/ Mailstop W722 FAX: 703-883-7996 _/ _/ _/ _/ McLean, VA 22102 Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Worse than an unanswered question is an unquestioned answer. <snip>
Powered by eList eXpress LLC