RE: What's the right forum for developing XML Messaging

[David Burdett <[e-mail]>]

Chris
 
I think there is a great overlap between eCommerce's needs for messaging and
the general need for "messaging" particularly in the area of reliable
messaging and use of security (see
http://www.xml.org/archives/ebxml-transport/msg00145.html
<http://www.xml.org/archives/ebxml-transport/msg00145.html> ) which contains
the Overview and Requirements document for the group and you will find that
the scope is not focused just on eCommerce.
 
Remember that IOTP was developed to solve a particular eCommerce problem
namely how to do purchases and payments reliably and securely on the
Internet.
 
If it were not for the overlap in the requiremennt then I would be strongly
advocating separate activities to focus on the needs of each as you suggest.
However as I see it the objectives of the original IETF XML Messaging and
ebXML Transport, Routing and Packaging groups (as compared with ebXML as a
whole) are just about identical.
 
In my view I anticipate that the results of the work currently under way
will be generally applicable to other situations - not just eCommerce. If
additional needs are required then they I think it should be possible to
meet the need as extensions rather than a re-write.
 
David

-----Original Message-----
From: Smith, Chris [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 7:06 AM
To: IETF Trade (E-mail)
Subject: RE: What's the right forum for developing XML Messaging




As one of the "people who developed IOTP" (and also one who 
'developed *using* IOTP') we did what almost all DTD users do. 

We wrote a core schema as a DTD, and extended and refined it 
to its finished form (that is 'usable form') using English. 
I've noticed that a great many RFCs use this strategy as 
well. It seems to have worked reasonably well. 

As for xmlmessaging - I'm curious if others think that 
'xmlmessaging' will be used solely for e-commerce. Myself - 
I think that's a rhetorical question! It will be used for 
all kinds of things. 

This was my original thought when David mentioned the 
whole question of either/or - I figured that the IETF 
side was appropriate to work on the core xmlmessaging, 
while the ebXML would work on using it for e-business. 

Of course, in later notes, I find that these two groups 
are essentially the same people. This then raises a different 
concern; the initial notes on xmlmessaging do not (and should 
not!) say that it is only for e-business purposes. However, 
it that is the only reason it gets developed at all, then I 
would have a minor concern that we might not get the best 
possible xmlmessaging spec available due to a focus on 
e-business. 

I beginning to think that ebXML should go solve the problems 
they need to solve - just don't pretend that you are solving 
the generic xmlmessaging problem for everyone. If they *do* 
solve it in a robust and reusable manner, great - then it is 
available. Since most of the individuals (and their sponsoring 
companies) are part of ebXML for e-business reasons, this makes 
a lot of sense to me. This group wasn't formed to solve generic 
problems, they were formed to solve e-business problems. 

If an ebXML result ends up missing essential non-e-business features, 
then xmlmessaging will still have to be done separately. 

However - if ebXML wants to use a generic xmlmessaging capability as 
a foundation, then it seems quite appropriate that a separate group 
work on that portion of it, and that they include all appropriate 
requirements, not just the e-business ones. 

------------------------------------------------------------ 
 Chris Smith                                +1.416.348.6090 
 Royal Bank                       [e-mail] 



> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Michie, Alan [ mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> ] 
> Sent: February 17, 2000 03:59 PM 
> To: 'David Burdett' 
> Cc: ebXML Transport (E-mail); IETF Trade (E-mail) 
> Subject: RE: What's the right forum for developing XML Messaging 
> 
> 
> David, 
> 
> The group of people who developed IOTP have probably 
> already decided what to do about the choice between 
> using plain DTD's or some form of schema which allows 
> element values to be described more precisely. 
> 
> Can you tell me what has been decided and why or refer 
> me to some information on the web or in the email 
> archive --- OR -- is the matter still 
> under consideration for the xmlmessage spec?