RE: EbMS Conf Call Question for you

Mappings a to e make sense to me. Dale



-----Original Message-----
From: Ric Emery 
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 9:20 AM
To: Dale Moberg
Subject: EbMS Conf Call Question for you

Dale,

On the conference call this week, the committee wondered if the CORE-70
has
been resolved to your satisfaction? See the issue description below, and
Jacques resolution.

Thanks,
ric


CORE-70 Issue (Pending Review & Edit)
Source: 
Dale Moberg, Axway/Cyclone <>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-msg-comment/200605/msg00000.h
tml
Description: 
The MEP definitions do not map well to business transactions as defined
in
ebBP or in UMM. A 
request-response pattern should not require fundamentally different ebMS
MEPs depending on 
how it binds to the underlying protocol.
It is unclear how the MEPs that were available in ebMS2, map to V3 MEPs.
Owner: 
Jacques 
Resolution: 
09/13/2006: First part of issue (MEP binding) addressed in WD 14.
Second
part (v2-v3 mapping)
addressed in draft Compatibility Appendix; see "CM4" section, to be
included
in WD 15.