W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2000

Re: XML protocol comparisons

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:51:32 -0500
To: David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <20000330115132.B21990@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 29, 2000 at 09:58:15PM -0800, David Burdett wrote:
> Eric
> I took a quick look through your comparisons and thought it a great idea. As
> I'm the author of IOTP and the editor of ebXML, here are a few suggestions.
> Let me know what you think.
> Firstly, it might be a good idea to include a couple of additional "facets"
> specifically:
> *	security - rules on how data should be digitally signed to prove
> authenticity and authorization of requested actions, and

added [http://www.w3.org/2000/03/29-XML-protocol-matrix#layers_security]

> *	reliability - how to recover from failed delivery of messages

I'm not sure how much this differs from #layers_transactions but I'm
interested in clarifying the distinction.

I found some slides on transaction ACIDity
Unfortunately, they're in French and I don't speak french (despite my
name). Anybody got better pointers? I'd like to link them from the
protocol matrix page.

> IOTP does both of these and ebXML Transport Routing & Packaging will.

I threw in a #laysers_routing facet and made up a definition:
   message forwarding from agent to agent depending on 
   attributes of the message

Is that what you meant? It's definitely a feature i'm interested
in. LOTP
used transfer adapters
to optimize routing for the transport protocol it's using.

What is packaging? Does it need its own facet?

> You might also want to think about discovery protocols that allow you
> identify how two parties/servers/clients can determine how to successfuly
> interoperat. ebXML will be doing this (it's a recently identified
> requirement) and eCo (http://www.commercenet.com/eco) already does this to a
> degree but more from a business/document perspective rather than protocol
> sense.

I think interface discovery
already addresses this, but am, as always, interested in

Would you be interested in giving me a row for eCo?

> On ebXML there are really four different threads that are relevent:
> *	Transport Routing & Packaging - which is a messaging protocol (but
> no business process)
> *	Core Components -  which defines standard forms for payloads of
> messages that are business documents

I think this notion is addressed with the extensibility and skinnyness

> *	Business Process - which will define how business documents can be
> used to support different business functions

That is currently listed as an ebXML attribute.

> *	Registry/Repository - which will describe how to discover
> information about schemas, specifications etc

Does this match interface discovery?

> In my view the first one (TR&P) is the most relevent to this list.
> I hope this helps. Get in touch if you have questions.

Indeed, this is exactly the kind of feedback I hoped for.


Received on Thursday, 30 March 2000 11:51:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:09 UTC