ebxml-msg — archive

[System]

Chris: I agree with you that there will be use cases where a forwarding intermediary may need to use different transport protocols for inbound and outbound messages. I believe Dale is assuming that a common CPA will be used by the From Party, the To Party, and the intermediary/intermediaries. Maybe that assumption is too restrictive. Even with such an assumption, it is not clear to me how it can be made to work. Consider the one intermediary case, if the intermediary's endpoints are transparently used by the From Party and the To Party as their own endpoints in the CPA (i.e., the transport endpoints in the CPA all contain addresses associated with the intermediary), then where does the intermediary find the real forwarding addresses for the From Party and To Party? Clearly, there is extra configuration information needed by the intermediary that is missing from the CPA. I also tend to agree with Marty that once you take into consideration transport level security or if there are multiple intermediaries, it will be unwieldy to capture all the relevant configuration information in one CPA. Has anyone worked out simple examples where a separate CPA is used between each adjacent pair of MSH nodes? What kind of business processes have to be used to represent the message forwarding activities? What Service and Action elements will be appropriate under the Via element? Is the existing CPP/A element structure sufficient for this purpose? Regards, -Arvola