I think that the conformance profile is the right place to
resolve backward compatibility issues.
It is increasingly becoming a practice to resolve this at
implementation level.
For example, SOAP1.2 is not backward compatible with SOAP
1.1, but most stacks support both.
I have not heard of any complaint about
it.
Also, many gateways support several
protocols.
The conformance profile should take position
on:
- V3 MEPs to use only V3 messages.
- the use of mapping rules V2-V3 (in
appendix)
- whether the PMode should be extended to V2 messages
(using mapping rules above)
This can be finalized during 2nd PR.
Jacques
From: Dale Moberg [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 6:32 AM
To: ebXML Messaging
TC
Cc: Ric Emery; Persson Ulf; Colombier Guillaume
Subject:
[ebxml-msg] Addition to Gateway Conformance Profile
I would like the Gateway Conformance
Profile for ebMS 3.0 to require that an ebMS 3.0 MSH also be able to support
ebMS 2.0 functionality, at least at a basic interoperability
level.
This requirement addresses end-user
concerns that because of the updates in ebMS using some WS-* technology
specifications (WSS, etc), that therefore ebMS 3 has incompatible differences
from ebMS 2.0. It is important to assure those who have the ebMS 2.0 technology
in production that there is no loss of ebMS 2.0 functionality when selecting an
ebMS 3.0 MSH satisfying the main (full-featured) conformance
profile.
I will be on a plane during the call
today but hope to rejoin the TC meeting next week.
Dale
Moberg
Axway
Inc.
