minutes of oasis ebxml tc call

Document Sample
minutes of oasis ebxml tc call Powered By Docstoc
					Minutes of OASIS ebXML Messaging TC Call - August 13, 2001

Ralph Berwanger, BTrade
Arvola Chan, Tibco Software
Colleen Evans, Sonic Software
Chris Ferris, Sun Microsystems
David Fischer, The Drummond Group
Scott Hinkleman, IBM
Ian Jones, British Telecom
Brad Lund, Intel
Bruce Pedretti, Hewlett Packard
David Smiley, Mercator
Pete Wenzel, RosettaNet
Sanjay Cherian, Sterling Commerce
Sinisa Zimek, SAP

Next call: Monday, August 27
1100 Eastern, 0800 Pacific
Ralph (BTrade) is hosting – will send out call details this week.

1. General
   a. Ian to develop scope and mission statement.
   b. Ian has received only one comment from public request for comments (related to V1.0,
      not a requirement for V2.0). Ian will send a notice regarding closure for comments on
      V1.0, and indicate that requirements for V2.0 are being collected with Oct cut-off date.
   c. Cut off for comments on V1.0 is Friday Aug 17.
   d. David Burdett proposed a technical report on ‘how to compose a message’ - a user /
      implementation guide (not really the minimum implementation definition). Status is
      unknown. Should it be developed by the POC group? David Fischer will bring up in the
      Conformance TC meeting this week in San Jose.

2. Face to Face meeting
   a. Date proposed for Messaging TC is Oct 3-5
      i. CPP/A will hold their f2f Oct 1-2
      ii. Joint CPP/A and Messaging meeting on Oct 3.
      iii. Silicon Valley area has been expressed as most convenient (XML One is in San Jose
           that same week). Joint meeting expected to have around 30 attendees. A host needs
           to be determined, preferably outside of San Jose to reduce hotel costs and conflict
           with XML One bookings. UN meeting is week of Oct 8, also in the bay area.
      iv. Version1.1 draft should be submitted to TC around 10 days following the f2f for
           internal review, and for public review by the end of Oct.

Team Updates

1. T1 – Con Ops
   a. Ralph put out thoughts to list. Any comments? Ralph is still working on it; 75-80% of
      first draft is done. He will post to the list for feedback by Friday.

   b. Intent is to clarify what MSH is - boundaries. Issue regarding lack of Service Interface.
      Make spec more of a stand-alone document that doesn’t require full ebXML architecture
      context to understand.
   c. Take sections 5 and 6 of 1.0 spec – add things talked about in Dallas. Version attribute,
      put in section 5, doesn’t fit. Perhaps it should be moved into section 4 where caveats and
      assumptions are.
   d. Still writing for 1.0 specification, not 2.0. Changes will go intoV1.1 spec.

2. T2 – V1.0 Errata.
   a. David Burdett working on database to track comments. When comment period is closed,
      we will discuss those issues that require group consensus to resolve. By the Aug 27 call
      David will have an organized list of comments so we can identify what issues are
      outstanding and which need to be discussed. That gives us around four weeks to pare
      comments down prior to next f2f.
   b. End to end reliable messaging discussion
      i. End to end RM
          (1) Covered in V1.1, or a release 2 requirement? Historically, point to point, hop to
              hop reliable messaging (with RM required for each hop end to end) was the
              original V1.0 requirement (not end to end). Clarification or tightening up is
              required as current specification is ambiguous.
          (2) Should specify that any MSH in the path must support RM semantics, not just
              From MSH or To MSH.
          (3) Impact on reliable messaging method - dynamically changed as message flows
              through intermediary hops.
          (4) Question regarding intermediary scenarios where other RM protocols are used
              (e.g., JMS or MQSeries) in concert with ebXML RM.
          (5) How Does SOAP Actor fit?
          (6) From – To, end to end RM uses DeliveryReceipt. Acknowledgement is point to
              point receipt. Ack requested is a VIA property.
          (7) Distinction between MSH level acknowledgements (end to end DeliveryReceipt
              and point to point Acknowledgement) and application level acknowledgement.
              RM at MSH level, not application level. Application level acknowledgement is
              payload from MSH perspective.
          (8) How to distinguish between From / To party and destination? Point to point
              contact on routing is right approach
          (9) Part of the problem is that CPA does not specifically call out the notion of an
          (10)         Discussed scenario: Sender – C1 – Ariba – Receiver. Sender has
              agreement with C1. Receiver has agreement with Ariba. The respective
              intermediaries in each case are specified by each end. Where do resends occur?
              Once C1 receives and acks – Sender does not resend. And so on. Relay baton
              hand-off analogy.
          (11)         How do BP Business Signals differ from DeliveryReceipt?
              DeliveryReceipt required because use of ebXML messaging without BP may be a
              realistic scenario.

   c. T3 No updates


Shared By: