non-ebXML links

Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 09:39:35 -0700
From: "Dale Moberg" <>

Dan Weinreb (I hope) said:

"I think that someone reading the current ebXML MS spec, as it is

currently worded, could easily be forgiven for thinking that there is

no such concept as a "non-ebXML link in the path between two

intermediaries".  I don't think the existing spec, as currently

worded, gives the reader any warning that such a thing is being

contemplated."

I agree that this idea is new to me. If there are such links, I

think that they should have as much relevance as the fact that

routers are routing IP packets between autonomous systems! We should

be concerned with ebXML MS speakers, and the protocols for

their message exchange(s).

Actually, upon further reflection, I realize that my statement that
the spec doesn't give you "any warning" is not correct.  The warning
is in these subsections:

8.7.4 reliableMessagingMethod attribute

The reliableMessagingMethod attribute is an enumeration

that SHALL have one of the following values:

-- ebXML

--
Transport

The default implied value for this attribute is ebXML.

10.1.2 Methods of Implementing Reliable Messaging

Support for Reliable Messaging MAY be implemented in one of the following two ways:

-- using the ebXML Reliable Messaging protocol, or

-- using ebXML SOAP structures together with commercial software
	 products that are designed to provide reliable delivery of
	 messages using alternative protocols.

When I first read the spec I was somewhat confused by these sections.

They could be interpreted as "scriptural basis" for Marty's position
that we want to allow pairs of IM's to make independent choices about
what protocol to use.

After all, section 10.1.2 clearly states that you MAY elect to *not*
"use the ebXML Reliable Messaging protocol".  This clearly implies
that there is such a thing as "using the ebXML MS Spec protocol *but*
*not* using the ebXML Reliable Messaging protocol".  That clearly
implies that there is a *distinction* between the former protocol and
the latter protocol, so that you can be conforming to one while not
using the other.  It sounds paradoxical.  But I think it makes
complete sense in terms of the separation of layers that about which
I've been running off at the mouth (at the keyboard?): we all share
the higher layer, but we have a choice about the lower layer, and
that's exactly the choice that these two subsections are talking
about.

Do we care about "scriptural basis"?  Should we be in the role of
rabbis or judges interpreting a scripture or law that we were given,
or should we just be the legislators and decide as we choose to
decide?  Perhaps for release 1.1 we should tend more toward the
former, and for 2.0 tend more towards the latter?  It's not for me
to say.

--
Dan