Sander:
We just need a word to describe endpoints that can't
receive incoming [HTTP] requests, which we all know was a major requirement for
V3, motivating a feature like Pull messaging.
Please suggest a word for
this...
Regardless of how the routing is made to such
endpoints, the key point is, the Intermediary needs be configured for message
pulling (authorization metadata, MPC...). Therefore it must be able to do more
when communicating with an endpoint than just pushing.The original sender also
must be aware of this, because the RM resending parameters on one side and the
pulling frequency on the other side need be adjusted in order to avoid
generating a clutter of resends at each message (and in the case of relayed
Acks, ALL the intermediaries on the way need to have their RM parameters
adjusted).
Jacques
From: Sander Fieten
[mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 3:05
PM
To:
Subject: Re:
[ebxml-msg] Some ebms-level routing use cases?
I'm not sure if this definition of addressibility is not too narrow by
focusing only on the transport level of the message exchange. I think every
endpoint involved in an ebMS message exchange must in some way be uniquely
identifiable / addressable by ebMS header data as defined in the core spec for
user messages. If this assumption is true routing could be done based on this
address.
Regards,
Sander
On 13 mrt 2008, at 19:29, Durand, Jacques R. wrote:
I suggest we use the network-level definition of
"addressable", which is used in other WS-*:
Addressable = having an IP address AND able to receive
incoming requests from remote partners (e.g. through
firewall)
- When HTTP is used, that means running an HTTP server
able to receive HTTP requests.
- for ebMS, that
means ability to be the destination of One-way / Push
MEPs.
- a non-addressable ebMS endpoint means then it can
receive messages only by pulling them (or when bound to HTTP
responses)
Jacques
From: Sander Fieten [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 1:52 PM
To:
Subject:
Re: [ebxml-msg] Some ebms-level routing use cases?
Pim,
I'm wondering about the communication constraint you mention. As you
write under topology the intermediaries can identify endpoints based on
PartyId, so the endpoints are addressable.
Furthermore I think they also support the two-way push MEP beside two-way
push/pull MEP.
Regards
Sander
On 12 mrt 2008, at 09:59, Pim van der Eijk wrote:
General
business-level description:
- A particular set of
government services and processez is
provided by agencies in different sectors reporting to different ministries,
that have their own (very large) private networks. Dozens of MSHs
in various sectors, with some MSHs serving dozens or hundreds of
parties. In total a few thousand parties.
Topology:
- Within a sector, agencies
communicate via an intermediary. There is never any Endpoint to Endpoint
communication. The intermediary is also the connection to agencies in
other sectors (via their sector intermediary). Each intermediary knows
whether the addressed To/PartyId is connected to itself (two hops) or is
connected to some other sector hub (more than two hops).
Routing
function:
- some intermediaries are also Endpoints (sector hubs, hosting sector
services). They inspect the eb:Service to determine if they
provide this service themselves (possibly on behalf of many different
organizations), or need to forward the message to a separate
MSH.
- when (not delivering locally but) forwarding,
forwarding is based on ebMS header content: eb:To/eb:PartyId.
Communication
constraints:
- Branches are
not addressable. Can only push, or pull. The branches only use One-way /
Push MEPs for invoking the servers. Need to pull the
"Signals".
Evolution
profile:
- Sometimes a business partner is
first connected as an Endpoint to an intermediary, then later a Intermediary
is inserted. This should not require any changes at the Endpoints other than
changing the URL and TLS details.
An intermediary
should not have to know if the MSH it is connecting to is the Endpoint for
the message, or an Intermediary that forwards it.
- PartyIds may move from one Endpoint MSH to
another. Only the closest intermediary should have to take action to account
for that change. No other intermediary or Endpoint should need to know (as
they will still receive messages from, and send to, the same
intermediary).
- Some intermediaries are also
