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

[Kai Yokohama <[e-mail]>]

Forwarded by Kai Yokohama for Ofer Avineri.
--

Dick, David and Rik,

I must add my comments here (which David is probably aware of ;-), Myself
and David had discussed the operational aspects of the XML
Messaging/Transport within the IETF. One of my suggestions was to form a new
WG dedicated to XML Transport/Messaging. The attributes behind my thinking
were the broad requirements from such mechanism. XML Transport or Messaging
mechanism would be a general mean of transporting XML elements/docs. On top
of this "protocol" there would be *many* specific designed languages that
will run on this protocol. ebXML, ECML, DSML, VOXML, MathML and so on
reflect the broad requirements from such a protocol, and therefore I believe
that we need a dedicated WG within the IETF to cover the broad range of
requirements.

I think we have a list dedicated for this subject and I can look up the old
charter document I've worked on. I suggest we'll hold a small e-BoF among us
to decide what's the community consensus,

Regards,

Ofer Avineri
E-MANAGE Product Manager,
Digital Intelligence Systems, Inc.





----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Brooks (E) <[e-mail]>
To: David Burdett <[e-mail]>; Rik Drummond
<[e-mail]>
Cc: ebXML Transport (E-mail) <[e-mail]>; IETF
Trade (E-mail) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 5:06 AM
Subject: RE: What's the right forum for developing XML Messaging


> Rik, I wouldn't classify Dave's e-mail to TRADE as "forcing an either or
> decision". Candidly, I'm not convinced the IETF is the right forum for an
> XML standard. The IETF rules regarding RFC status of interdependcies, ref:
> S/MIME,  could require us to make XML and other non-IETF standards IETF
> RFC's first. As you know this can take some time.
>
> At this juncture we know that XML Messaging is one of several fine
> candidates in the running to become  the ebXML transport standard. We will
> know if it's the best solution after our group has had time to evalute all
> candidates in detail. I think the entire community would be best served if
> we focus on identifying what is best for ebXML and when we know what the
> best solution is we should pitch it to the appropriate standards bodies
for
> endorsement. Anything else is premature.
>
> Dave, it really is a personal decision as to which effort you wish to
focus
> on and only you can make this call.
>
> just my .02
>
> Dick
> http://www.8760.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail]
> [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of David
> Burdett
> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 6:21 PM
> To: Rik Drummond
> Cc: ebXML Transport (E-mail); IETF Trade (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: What's the right forum for developing XML Messaging
>
>
> Rik
>
> I'm not forcing a "one or the other decision" I'm trying to be practical.
> Right now IETF XML Messaging and ebXML TP&R are of just about identical
> scope and at an identical stage of development. Therefore it does not
really
> make sense for two groups of people to work in parallel on the same
> activities that might result in competing specifications.
>
> I'm also the editor on both initiatives as well as author of the XML
> Messaging Requirements document that has just been published. So it will
be
> impossible and impractical for any work I do in one group to not influence
> the other.
>
> More importantly I do not have the time to work on both. So on a personal
> level I have no option but to choose one or other of the initiatives to
work
> on.
>
> I therefore thought it only fair to draw to the attention of the IETF
Trade
> WG community the necessity for me to choose which initiative to work on as
> well as point out the opportunity for the Trade WG members to get involved
> in ebXML if they want to since I think it an important and worthwhile
> open-standards initiative.
>
> There is also an IETF Trade WG Meeting in Adelaide, Australia at the end
of
> March and I wanted to provide an opportunity for discussion on the email
> list before the meeting as this will make any discussion in the Adelaide
> meeting better informed.
>
> There is also a possibility that I will not be able to make the Adelaide
> meeting so email discussion within the IETF is in my view essential and
> sooner rather than later.
>
> As far as the other initiatives are concerned, then I agree that we need
to
> continue our co-ordination efforts with respect to, for example, SOAP and
> EDIINT. I will be pleased to work with you in this regard.
>
> Finally I think there are both benefits and disadvantages to both ebXML
and
> the IETF as forums for developing a "messaging" specification and welcome
> the views of both the IETF and ebXML communities on this matter.
>
> Regards
>
> David
> Editor IETF Trade WG & ebXML Transport, Packaging & Routing WG
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rik Drummond [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 9:54 PM
> To: David Burdett; IETF Trade (E-mail)
> Cc: ebXML Transport (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: What's the right forum for developing XML Messaging
>
>
> David, you are trying to force an "either one or the other" decision.
>
> I don't think that is appropriate at this time or the only option. An
option
> exists where team leaders and workgroup leaders coordinate between the
ebXML
> and the IETF groups that have possible charters in this area. They are:
> EDIINT, soap, IOTP and possibly others.
>
> I have been talking with Microsoft and IBM on the issue. it is too early
to
> tell if we can establish coordination and hence too early to decide on
> "either one or the other".
>
> Best regards, Rik
> team leader ebXML transport and packaging team &
> chair IETF EDIINT wg
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail]
> [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of David
> Burdett
> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 6:12 PM
> To: IETF Trade (E-mail)
> Cc: ebXML Transport (E-mail)
> Subject: What's the right forum for developing XMl Messaging
>
>
> To Members of the IETF Trade Working Group ...
>
> The purpose of this email is to solicit opinions from the IETF Trade
Working
> Group on the "best" forum for developing specifications for "XML
Messaging".
>
> Although I have made one submission on this topic to this working group,
> interest in developing this type of specification has also arisen within
> ebXML which is a joint United Nations/OASIS development.
>
> Clearly it does not make sense for two - probably competing -
specifications
> to be developed in the same area. Hence this email.
>
> The remainder of this email contains some background information on XML
> Messaging and ebXML.
>
> I encourage members of the Trade Working Group to make known their views
on
> these alternatives development forums.
>
> Regards
>
> David Burdett
>
> Advanced Technology, CommerceOne
> 1600 Riviera Ave, Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596, USA
> Tel: [phone] or [phone];
> mailto:[e-mail]; Web: http://www.commerceone.com
>
> ======================================
>
> The following provides:
> * a brief recap on XML Messaging
> * a more detailed explanation of ebXML, and
> * a brief evaluation of some of the advantages and disadvantages, as I
> see it, for using either to develop specifications like "XML Messaging"
>
> XML MESSAGING SPEC
> ==================
> On 25th January an Internet Draft titled "Requirements for XML Messaging
> Version 1.0 Release 00" was published (see
>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-trade-xmlmsg-requirements-00.
> txt).
>
> The objective of XML Messaging is to provide "... a generic approach to
the
> reliable, resilient, secure, tamper resistant, authenticated exchange of
XML
> or other electronic documents over insecure, unreliable transport
> mechanisms"
>
> The requirements document suggested the development of a set of related
> specifications that met the above requirement within the IETF Trade
Working
> Group.
>
> So far I have received a few emails volunteering to get involved but no
> other feedback.
>
> EBXML
> =====
> "ebXML" stands for "electronic business XML" and is a joint effort between
> the United Nations/CEFACT group and OASIS (more from
http://www.ebxml.org/).
>
> The objectives of ebXML are
> * a worldwide project to standardize XML business specifications
> * develop a technical framework that will enable XML to be utilized in
> a consistent manner for the exchange of all electronic business data
> * industry groups currently working on XML specifications have been
> invited to participate in the 18-month project
> * inaugural meeting - 15-17 November, in California, 100 + attendees
> * follow up meeting - 31 Jan - 4 Feb in Orlando, Florida 120+
> attendees
>
> UN/CEFACT stands for the "United Nations Centre for the Facilitation of
> Procedures and Practices for Administration, Commerce and Transport" (more
> from: http://www.unece.org/cefact/). It is the management body for
> "UN/EDIFACT - United Nations Directories for Electronic Data Interchange
for
> Administration, Commerce and Transport" (more from
> http://www.unece.org/trade/untdid/welcome.htm).
>
> The important thing about UN/EDIFACT is that they developed EDI and bring
> with them the whole EDI community. The EDI community now wants to move to
> XML so that the automation benefits that EDI has brought to large
companies
> filters down to smaller and medium sized enterprises (SMEs).
>
> A number of groups have been set up within ebXML to work on a variety of
> different areas (see
http://www.ebxml.org/project_teams/project_teams.htm).
> One of these is called the Transport Packaging & Routing team (see
> http://www.ebxml.org/project_teams/transport.htm). In the workshop last
week
> the TP&R team defined the scope of its work as follows:
> * provide an envelope and header for routing of message content
> * define template sequences for the exchange of messages
> * provide support for payloads of any type of digital data
> * adopt security protocols that enable:
> * non repudiation of sending of messages and acknowledgements
> * privacy and integrity of communications between parties
> * authentication of senders of messages
> * control over access to services
> * support verifiable audit trails
> * provide mechanisms for reporting on errors or other problems
> * develop a messaging protocol for reliable message delivery
> * definine the information required that describes how to interact
> with a service
> * develop a default method of usage that enables bootstrapping of
> services
>
> ... and objectives of:
> * to enable any party to carry out integrated eCommerce transactions
> with any other party anywhere in the world using their hardware and
software
> vendor of choice
> * to persuade a wide variety of vendors to implement the approach
> * to not reinvent the wheel - re-use where possible
> * to enable existing "messaging" solutions to "bridge" to the ebXML
> solution
> * to scale from SMEs to large companies
> * to scale from low power to high end solutions
>
> Membership of the working group is completely open and there are no
joining
> fees - just like the IETF. The specifications of the working group, like
all
> other ebXML deliverables, will completely freely available with no
> restrictions (also just like the IETF) and will be published under a
"United
> Nations" banner.
>
> The method of working of the group is a mixture of email lists (see:
> http://www.ebxml.org/participate.htm), weekly telephone calls and regular
> meetings 3-6 times a year - this is more intensive than the IETF.
>
> Finally, perhaps the most imporant objective of the ebXML Transport,
Routing
> and Packaging work group is to try and get existing related initiatives in
> the messaging area to converge. Although no firm commitments have yet been
> made, organizations as diverse as IBM, EDIINT and RosettaNet have
> participated actively in the meetings and email lists.
>
> ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
> =============================
> Some of the advantages and disadvantages that I see are as follows:
> * ebXML has already made some good progress in developing it's ideas
> since it was formed and has a method of working that should result in the
> faster development of specifications - i.e. it has momentum
> * ebXML's focus is business-to-business eCommerce -  which is probably
> narrower than the general internet focus of the IETF
> * ebXML, although sponsored by the United Nations, is not an
> established standards setting authority such as the IETF
> * both are equally open and the results produced by either should be
> equally freely available for use.
>
> In my view it does not make sense for both the IETF Trade Working Group
and
> the ebXML initiatives to continue.
>
> Views and opinions of the members of this group will be welcomed.
>
> David Burdett
>
>