Re: T2 The answer isn't always "you need a CPA" was RE: T2 PLEASE READ - Suggested Change - add "From" Service and Ac tionto the header

David,

(I think I am repeating myself here).  With our without a CPA, two parties
doing business have to share certain configuration information in order to
do the business.  They can express the sharing in a CPA or they can
exchange information person to person and then separately put it into their
systems.  Certainly, there are cases where a relatively small amount of
information has to be shared.  Most of the shared information is static.
It doesn't change from message to message.  If you insist on putting the
static information into every message header, you needlessly increase the
amount of processing per message.

Regards,
Marty

*************************************************************************************

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown
Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************

"Burdett, David" <> on 09/12/2001 01:09:25 AM
To:
Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "Ian. C. Jones (E-mail)"

<>
cc:
"'William J. Kammerer'" <>, "ebXML Messaging

(E-mail)" <>
Subject:  T2 The answer isn't always "you need a CPA" was RE: T2 PLEASE REA

D - Suggested Change - add "From" Service and Ac  tionto the header

Marty (and also Ian Jones)

You said ...

>>>The solution of piling additional information into the message header to
make up for the lack of a CPA should not be considered acceptable.<<<

The ebXML messaging group has **agreed** that we want to separate the ebXML
Messaging and CPPA specs so that they can be implemented independently or
together (Ian, please correct me if I am wrong). I like others believe that
CPAs can offer many benefits, particularly if you are doing individual
point-to-point communications which **need** to be different in every case.
Using a CPA for these situations will make it much easier to set up these
types of links.

However I think there is another use case where communities of users agree
to exchange information in largely the same (or a few different) ways. This
means that separate agreements for each link are not necessary and in fact
create a barrier as it becomes a pre-requiste to negotiate re-negotiate the
CPA before a new type of message can be sent that supports a new busines
process.

The alternative approach is to register your public key certificate, and
the
URLs associated with sending or receiving your messages with a particular
service and action. For many businesses the same URL for all services and
actions will be OK.

What I am trying to do is make sure that ebXML works, as the group has
agreed, either with a CPA or without. To this end I am making, what I hope
are constructive suggestions on how to fix problems where they exist.

So come on Marty !! make a suggestion on how to solve the problems we are
trying to fix without saying ... "you need a CPA" !!

Best wishes

David