- From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:01:33 -0800
- To: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, "'Duane Nickull'" <duane@xmlglobal.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <IGEJLEPAJBPHKACOOKHNEEAMDDAA.arkin@intalio.com>
RE: Layers in the WSA (was RE: [Fwd: UN/CEFACT TMG Releases e-Busines s Architecture Technical Specification for Public Review])On the other hand, there will be use cases where there are long-standing business relationships with repeat business where negotiating and making agreements in advance (as ebXML does) makes complete sense. Can we say that in this case the message has to contain a reference to some agreement and the message gets processed subject to that agreement? For example, you can have a service level agreement that need to be pre-negotiated and all messages have to carry the SLA number to be processed and the SLA can be started and managed by some WSDL operation. There is no need to negotiate messaging-level agreement, and the negotiation of another agreement could be in itself a service. Just like a bank account, where I need to reference the account number when I deposit or withdraw money (essentially my SLA), and I can also have operations for creating and closing an account, but I don't need to negotiate any messaging agreement with my bank. I can access my bank account online from any computer that has support for the requested protocol (in my case HTTPS). arkin So my take would be: 1. The messaging layer should allow support for the set of additional features required (e.g. security, reliability, conversations, etc) 2. Use of the features in a message either separately or together should be identified by extensions in the SOAP headers so that the recipient of the message can determine what the sender expects them to do with the message. 3. The specification, ngotiation, and enforcement of agreements as in ebXML should be possible, but as a layer on top. Hope this helps. David -----Original Message----- From: Duane Nickull [mailto:duane@xmlglobal.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 1:40 PM To: www-ws-arch@w3.org Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: Re: Layers in the WSA (was RE: [Fwd: UN/CEFACT TMG Releases e-Busines s Architecture Technical Specification for Public Review]) Champion, Mike wrote: = > 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? >>>>>> I will tackle this one. The text is probably not clear enough in our (UN/CEFACT) spec and we will address this during our face to face in early March. What the messaging layer must do it provide enforcement via a gatekeeping functionality (an explicit tie-in to the Business Agreement between the sender and the receiver). Any ebXML that arrives asserts that it exists as "part" of a business relationship. It does this by asserting a unique identifier to an XML representation of that Business Agreement called a CPA. The messaging layer can access an API to verify if that CPA ID is valid. Furthermore, since any single business relationship may involve several concurrent threads of a business process (ie - procurement), the incoming message must specify a Conversation ID, an assertation that it is one message belonging to a specific choreography of messages (thread?). WSDL + SOAP do not have this functionality explicitly required, however that would not stop someone from implementing it by requiring that tie in as one of the required parameters. Therefore, WSDL + SOAP can provide this. It is conceivable that someone could implement a WSDL/SOAP WS that had a tie in to an ebXML CPA instance. This is what was meant by the statement in the architecture document. We obviously may need to re-visit this sentence to see if we need to clarify it. Please also keep in mind that the UN/CEFACT architecture is not ebXML specifc. It is not dependant on ebXML components being used and actually presumes that WSDL + SOAP may be an underlying implementation strategy. Therefore, we (UN/CEFACT eBusiness Architecture Working Group) need to make sure we get this right. > 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. >>>>>>>>>>> This was driven out of a set of business requirements collected by over 2000 contributors around the globe. The messaging layer does not need to understand what the layers up the stack are doing, just be capable of enforcing those rules of engagement. Therefore, a transport level acknowledgement should not to be construed as a business acceptance of the message etc etc. Duane Nickull - VP Strategic Relations, Technologies Evangelist XML Global Technologies **************************** ebXML software downloads - http://www.xmlglobal.com/prod/
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2003 01:02:45 UTC