Title: Re: [ebcore-cppa] Reminder: ebCore-CPPA SC call tomorrow.
Reminder that we have a call scheduled for
tomorrow. Please let me know if you can attend and will be able to
review the materials out there.
Notes from our previous meeting:
We reviewed the document comparing "old" and "proposed new"
ways of specifying related channels.
One discussion item was the use of ebBP signals.
In ebMS 2.0 and 3.0, these signals map to UserMessages, so they are defined
messages with action bindings in the CPA. We could add special links to
link the business messages and the related ebBP signals. A BSI
library could use this information since for a message it should be able to
process multiple response messages (having RefToMessageId set to the
MessageId of the sent message), one business response and ReceiptAcknowdlegment,
AcceptanceAcknowledgement etc. messages. I believe Dale agreed to
look into this !?
Pim
From: Pim van der Eijk
[mailto:]
Sent: 08 April 2010 19:36
To:
'Pim van der Eijk';
Subject:
[ebcore-cppa] ebCore-CPPA SC call tomorrow
Usual reminder. I hope to produce some notes
outlining and comparing "old" and "proposed new" ways of doing synchronous
replies, pull mode, setting channels for various types of signals.
In the mean time, the examples and notes I posted before give some
background.
Pim
From: Pim van der Eijk
[mailto:]
Sent: 26 March 2010 09:24
To:
''
Subject: ebCore-CPPA SC call
today
Hello,
A reminder about the call today. Same agenda as for the
proposed earlier, cancelled meeting.
Note
that the time for the call is 20:00 CET. CET, unlike other timezone, is
not yet in DST so the meeting time may be an hour different from previous
meetings if you are in other timezones.
Pim
From: Pim van der Eijk
[mailto:]
Sent: 12 March 2010 15:32
To:
'Sander Fieten'; 'Moberg Dale';
''
Subject: RE: [ebcore-cppa]
Reminder: ebCore-CPPA SC call tomorrow.
OK, then I see little reason to have a call and suggest we
postpone.
In the proposal, a delivery channel can include a
specification of its related channels, where the type attribute identifies what
kind of message is sent over that channel. E.g. the following associates
the ebMS 3.0 Receipt with a channel called dc.Default.Sync.
<RelatedChannels>
<ChannelId type=http://docs.oasis-open.org/ebxml-msg/ebms/v3.0/ns/core/200704/Receipt>dc.Default.Sync</ChannelId>
</RelatedChannels>
That channel can
have an @addresId attribute that points to an
addres group elsewhere in the CPA that can
include WS Addressing reference parameter information.
Pim
From: Sander Fieten
[mailto:]
Sent: 12 March 2010 14:58
To:
Moberg Dale; Pim Eijk, van der;
Subject: Re: [ebcore-cppa] Reminder:
ebCore-CPPA SC call tomorrow.
I won’t be able to join todays call. Our cat probably
broke his tail, so will have to go to the vet with him.
I think we have
to decide and discuss whether we want CPA’s for endpoint to intermediary traffic
or only for end-2-end exchanges. On the structure of the CPA I was thinking that
we can also define specific ActionBinding for signals. They can then be bound to
their own channel (with the required WS-A config).
Regards,
Sander
On 11/03/2010 21:49, "Moberg Dale" <> wrote:
I am on vacation this week but could dial in to
receive a status report.
Reviewing pending materials will be difficult
because I have only worked
with Kathryn on how to obtain requirement input
related to Christiano
N's general issue.
I have tried to organize
obtaining some sample of what would be needed
to support "semantic
alignment agreements" on data.
Beyond that I have not looked at the
scope of rework needed using your
RelatedChannels this
week.
-----Original Message-----
From: Pim van der Eijk [mailto:]
Sent:
Thursday, March 11, 2010 3:04 AM
To:
Subject:
[ebcore-cppa] Reminder: ebCore-CPPA SC call
tomorrow.
Hello,
A reminder that we will have a call
tomorrow. If you can't
make it, please let me know.
If you
can, please review the materials that have been
posted so
far.
Thanks,
Pim
-----Original Message-----
From: Pim
van der Eijk [mailto:]
Sent:
22 February 2010 22:06
To: ''
Subject:
No call on 2010-02-26
Hello,
Since I wrote the minutes for
the CPP/CPA call I learned
that I will be travelling on Friday, so I am
cancelling the
call.
In the mean time, your review of the proposed
changes and
any comments to the list are
welcome.
Thanks,
Pim
-----Original
Message-----
From: Pim van der Eijk [mailto:]
Sent:
15 February 2010 15:11
To:
Subject:
[ebcore-cppa] Notes from CPP/CPA call 2010-02-12
1)
Discussion of schema enhancements and examples for pull
and
sync
TC member discussed the proposals (a.o. use
of
<RelatedChannels/>), but need more time to review time.
By
next meeting, we will decide whether the changes are
worth
pursuing. If yes, the next steps are to work out the
precise
specifications for all types of related channels,
for all protocols that
CPA supports.
2) Cristiano's request
Pete looked into
this. There are some extensibility points,
but they don't seem to
provide what Cristiano requested.
With a document (or constituent part), we
would need to
specify (i) the referenced external document, (ii)
the
namespace or type of such a document and (iii) some
indication of
the what the external document says about the
document or part. Like
additional validation constraints,
profiling rules, other types of semantic
alignment. Dale
proposes to bring some more people to the discussion
and
will draft some input for discussion.
Next call on 26th of this
Month.
Next schedule ebCore TC meeting on 19th of this
Month.
N.B. I took the liberty to extract the PartyId
type
specification from the CPA draft and am proposing it to the
ebCore
TC as a standalone (mini)spec.
Pim
-----Original
Message-----
From: Pim van der Eijk [mailto:]
Sent:
08 February 2010 11:20
To:
Subject:
RE: [ebcore-cppa] CPP/CPA call this Friday
Hello,
Brief
notes from this call:
1) We discussed the proposed changes and
discussion. So
far, CPPA has attempted to be maximally
compatible with
version 2.0. Some of the new constructs
(like
RelatedChannels) are covering and extending the
functionality of
MessagingCharacteristics. The spec needs
to indicate which features
are included for compatibility
and make recommendations how new CPAs should
be set up.
The concept of RelatedChannels can also be used to
cover
synchronous replies and Pull mode. Pim will send an
update
some time this week with examples for the next meeting
(which is
this Friday, February 12).
We also need to talk more about the
concept of multiple CPAs
(with business partners, intermediaries) at the
same time
and how CPA formation would work.
2) We looked at
Cristiano's input. Pete and Dale think
that the current schema can
accomodate his need, as there is
an extensibility option to add attributes.
This could be
used for adding references to XSDs and other documents,
like
Schematron definitions. They will prepare some input for
next
meeting.
Pim
-----Original Message-----
From: Pim van der
Eijk [mailto:]
Sent:
27 January 2010 21:02
To:
Subject:
[ebcore-cppa] CPP/CPA call this Friday
Hello,
Reminder about
are meeting next Friday. Agenda topics:
1) Continued discussion
of support for ebMS 3.0
intermediaries in CPA 3.0.
2) Cristiano
has asked us to discuss the topic he raised
September last year, see email
below.
Pim
-----Original Message-----
From: Cristiano Novelli
[mailto:]
Sent:
04 September 2009 11:17
To: Pim van der Eijk
Subject: Re: [ebcore]
CPP/CPA enhancement suggestions
Hi Pim,
could be useful a way to
describe files associate to the
business document XML Schemas (specified in
the SimplePart),
but that don't become part of the message;
this
file (associate to the XML Schema of a business
document) could be, for
example:
a report file,
or a documentation file about the collaboration,
or a CAM
template file, or something that is useful retrieve in
the
agreement matching task.
To describe in CPPA this reference
associate file it could
be need, for example, something
like
SimplePart/NamespaceAssociate/@location
Is there something or a
way like this?
What do you think about it?
Best
Regards
------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
Cristiano
Novelli
ENEA, SIC - UDA - PMI
info http://summer.bologna.enea.it/~cristiano/information/
-----
Original Message -----
From: "Pim van der Eijk" <>
To: <>
Sent:
Thursday, September 03, 2009 10:56 PM
Subject: [ebcore] CPP/CPA enhancement
suggestions
>
>
>
> Here are some brief
descriptions of potential enhancement
requests for
> ebXML CPP/CPA,
for tomorrow's meeting. Depending on
interest from the
> TC, these
could be developed further.
>
> Warning: these are rough ideas,
hopefully the description
conveys the
> general
ideas.
>
> 1) Supporting end-to-end agreements in
multihop:
abstracting from
> hop-specific parameters
>
>
In the current CPP/CPA schema, a <DeliveryChannel>
defines
both
> quality of service (security, reliability) that
applies
"end-to-end" and
> settings that are different from hop to
hop. The
transport
> <Endpoint>, SSL settings and MEP
binding (pull or push)
are between
> the initiator and the first hop,
and between the responder
and the last
> hop. They are not end-to-end
agreement features.
>
> Requirement: allow partner agreements that
abstract from
the per-hop
> settings and express only the end-to-end
settings. This
hides the
> local parameters and allows both
partners to use the exact
same
> agreement.
>
> A simple
option is to make @transportId in
<DeliveryChannel>
> optional.
The CPA is then the same for sender and
recipient and can be
>
digitally signed. The transport configuration is declared
out of
scope
> for the agreement.
>
> Analogy to email: our ebMS
header and WS-A routing
parameter are
> structures for end-to-end
routing, like the RFC 2822 email
address
> "user@domain". The sender
has its private settings for
SMTP and
> recipient for IMAP/POP3
servers, and both can reconfigure
them
> independently and without
the other party knowing, as long
as the edge
> hops can establish a
message forwarding path.
>
> In this case a CPA no longer is
sufficient to fully
configure an ebMS
> MSH, like CPA 2.0 XML
documents are today. The missing
information
> needs to be added to
each deliveryChannel so that the MSH
can function
> properly. We
could leave how this is done to products or
define a
> standard XML
format for it. The missing information plus
the
> end-to-end
agreements can be merged to generate a classic,
complete
> CPA. But
that "CPA" could be different for sender and
recipient,
> especially
if there is more than one intermediary.
>
> Note that this is
already the case with ebMS 2.0 if e.g.
one party
> uses an SSL
terminator and the other does not: the
<Transport>
> elements
in the CPA are already different.
>
> (Note: this mapping from
channels or messages to "local"
transport
> configurations is like
the unspecified "routing function"
that
> intermediaries must
implement. See an earlier proposal in
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-cppa/200811/msg00
000.html.
)
>
> 2) Extending <DocExchange> and using
WS-Addressing
>
> In Part 2 we are using WS-Addressing.
The
<ebXMLSenderBinding> and
> <ebXMLReceiverBinding>
elements now have sections for
(end-to-end)
> security and
reliability. The <DocExchange> element should
contain
>
information that expresses whether the exhange is
point-to-point
>
(default) or multihop. If multihop, we could use some
defined
>
attribute value to express that the forward EPR reference
parameter
is
> constructed using the default algorithm (which constructs
an EPR
that
> mirros an ebMS UserMessage). The DocExchange group
would
then be
> reusable for many different service/action
combinations.
>
> We could also allow explicitly setting other WSA
fields
like Reply-To.
>
> 3) Delivery channels for "response"
signals
>
> With some delivery channels there are associated
signals:
pull
> requests, errors, acknowledgements, receipts.
These can
all use EPRs
> in a multihop context. If one of these
EPRs does not use
the default
> values mentioned in the spec, the
DeliveryChannel should
specify this
> EPR explicitly and therefore
becomes less reusable.
>
> The CPA 3.0 draft XSD has an Endpoint
type that can
express whether an
> endpoint is used for various uses
(e.g. errors). It may be
more
> flexible to have separate explicit
delivery channels for
these signals
> and have a reference from the
<DeliveryChannel> that is
used for the
> business message to
e.g. an @errorChannel,
@initiatingChannel (for
> Pull or Sync),
@receiptChannel, @errorChannel. That way,
for each
> signal
associated with a channel you can set security,
addressing and
>
other parameters explicitly. (Using @defaultMshChannelId
and
>
OverrideMshActionBinding, you can set global defaults for
all
signal
> channels, or channels of some type, but there is a need
to
be able to
> set this per delivery channel).
>
> 4)
Configuring PullRequest
>
> We now support the ebMS 3.0 "pull"
feature in CPA 3.0
draft by having
> an <Endpoint> element on
the <TransportSender> element.
(Section
> 4.3.8 of the latest
CPA 3.0 draft). This expresses that
the sender
> acts as the HTTP
server, unlike in CPPA 2.0 where the HTTP
server
> endpoint is always
associated with the receiver. This is
not enough
> to fully
configure the ebMS 3.0 PullRequest. The pull
request may be
>
secured using WS-Security, it may or may not be sent
reliably, and
may
> or may not have WS-Addressing configuration
(routing
parameters). I
> think the PullRequest should have its
own DeliveryChannel
(even in
> regular point-to-point ebMS) and there
could be a
reference
> @initiatingSignalChannel from the business
message
<DeliveryChannel>
> element to the channel that the
pull request uses.
>
> In multihop, we have distinguished two
cases:
> - Local pulling: only an edge intermediary needs to be
aware
of, and
> configured for, the pulling. Pull requests are
not
reliable:
> end-to-end retransmission; authorisation with
intermediary
locally.
> - End-to-end pulling: here we have subcases
based on
routing based on
> the @mpc (no reference parameter needed)
or routing using
a reference
> parameters. Global authorisation:
receiver has
authorisation
> agreement with
sender.
>
> So the proposed @pullRequest parameter (that links
a
delivery channel
> for a business message to the delivery channel
for the
pull request
> signal) is either an end-to-end configuration,
agreed
between sender
> and recipient, or a local
configuration.
>
> 5) Synchronous responses
>
> The
CPA 2.0 used nesting of CanReceive in CanSend (or vice
versa) to
>
indicate synchronous responses. The new ActionBinding
elements can
>
also be nested. I would like to have a way of expressing
that
a
> message on some channel is using the transport
backchannel, other
than
> nesting but by just using a different DeliveryChannel.
This
way,
> whether or not a CanReceive is a synchronous response to
a
CanSend, is
> expressed in the channel, not by
nesting.
>
> Motivation: in a CPP, you could have say 3 CanSends
and 5
CanReceives.
> These are associated with one or more
DeliveryChannels.
In CPP
> intersection those channels are matched
against another
CPP that
> should have 3 CanReceives and 5 CanSends.
If synchronous
response is
> expressed as nesting, a partner that
supports synchronous
and
> asynchronous will have a duplicate
ActionBinding, one with
a nested
> ActionBinding and the other
without one. It is simpler if
there is
> just a single
mechanism (multiple alternative
<DeliveryChannel>
> elements)
to express this. CPP intersection is must
simpler.
>
> There
already is a @syncReplyMode parameter in the
CPP/CPA, but it is
> in
MessagingCharacteristics which is optional. We could
have an
>
attribute @usesTransportBackChannel with default value
false. If
true,
> there could be an @initiatingDeliveryChannelId
parameter
that
> identifies the other delivery channel that a
particular
channel uses
> the backchannel from.
>
> These
two parameters could also be used for PullRequest as
in (4) to
>
reference the pull request delivery channel that the
message uses
the
> backchannel
of.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
---------
>
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the
OASIS TC
that
> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs
in
OASIS at:
>
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_work
groups.php
>
------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To
unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS
TC that generates
this mail. Follow this link to all your
TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_work
groups.php
------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To
unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS
TC that generates
this mail. Follow this link to all your
TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_work
groups.php
------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To
unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS
TC that generates
this mail. Follow this link to all your
TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_work
groups.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To
unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates
this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To
unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates
this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
