Layers in the WSA (was RE: [Fwd: UN/CEFACT TMG Releases e-Busines s Architecture Technical Specification for Public Review])

>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) 
> [mailto:RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 12:23 PM
> To: Duane Nickull; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> 
> This statement seems to me to highlight what seems to me to 
> be a fairly significant difference between the way an 
> organization like ebXML or UN/CEFACT views messaging layers 
> and the way the W3C is likely to.  

I agree, but where do we stand on formalizing our view of where  the
messaging layer fits into the WSA?  Roger, if you're still volunteering for
a task :-) this might be a good one.  

> I think (but would be glad 
> to be corrected if I am wrong), that the business specs view 
> some functions as being part of the messaging layer that the 
> W3C folk would probably think of as being in an application 
> layer, but that there are other functions that the two groups 
> would agree are in the messaging layer. 

Roger raises a very important point, IMHO. Does anyone who is involved in
ebXML(or any other company/ organization who has this view of the world)
want to make a case for the WSA conception of a messaging layer  having to
understand and enforce business-level rules?  It seems a bit like asking IP
to understand HTTP.  On the other hand, maybe our textbook notions of
protocol layering are not holding up in the Real World, e.g. firewalls
arguably *should* understand IP, TCP, HTTP, SOAP, SAML, WS-Security, etc.
and their interrelationships.  

Anyway, this touches on some deep issues that we haven't yet discussed, such
as security in general, the role(s) of firewalls  and other Web
intermediaries in the WSA, and how business logic fits into all this.  

> Specifically, I 
> think both groups would put security functions in the 
> messaging layer but disagree about business agreements 
> involving delivery.  [I'd be glad to be wrong here ...].  
> 
> I'm very unclear on the ramifications of this, but it seems 
> to me that the situation carries with it a potential for 
> discussions between people in these organizations to be 
> apples and oranges kind of affairs.  That is, terms like 
> "messaging service layer" may have rather different meanings 
> in the two organizations.  IMO there's absolutely nothing 
> wrong with that, but I think it might make us a little 
> cautious in expecting to develop shared views of things.

Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 16:17:00 UTC