Perhaps this issue should be raised in the Registry TC instead of
Messaging? As far as I know there was an ebXML Messaging SMTP interface to ebXML
Registry v2.0 and some interest to upgrade this to v3.0 from IHE, but did this
ever happen? Is the request about upgrading the simple SOAP interface
to use MTOM? But then the next request would be to upgrade the
interface to support addressing, and security, and reliability, and
...
Should we update the ebMS interface to Registry v3.0?
Now
that we are getting closer to having all ebXML modules to a 3.0 level, we
definitely should look at providing ebMS 3.0 Sync and Push-and-Pull (client
Pushes request to, pulls responses from, registry) interfaces. The
mapping of ebRS to ebMS2 or ebMS3 (via ebCPA2/3) did not seem to be a complex
challenge, last time I checked ..
Pim van der
Eijk
From: David RR Webber (XML)
[mailto:]
Sent: 05 April 2007 18:47
To: Ric
Emery
Cc: ;
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] SOAP 1.2 MTOM and ebMS
v3
Ric,
Microsoft is proposing this for IHE/XDS registry web service
interfacing.
Perhaps we should invite them to discuss on conference call?
DW
"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)
--------
Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] SOAP 1.2 MTOM and ebMS
v3
From: Ric Emery <>
Date: Thu, April 05, 2007
12:28 pm
To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <>,
<>
Cc:
<>
SOAP with
attachments is expressly supported in the ebMS 3.0 core features. MTOM support
is not mentioned.
I would be concerned with MTOM usage since there is no
mention of MTOM in the ebMS 3.0 spec. My opinion is that it would be
problematic for an MSH to utilize MTOM without the specification outlining its
use.
If MTOM usage is important the user base we should be able to
discuss its use in a future addendum or part 2 of the ebMS 3 spec. Is there a
reason that you think MTOM should be an
option?
Thanks,
ric
On 4/5/07 9:04 AM, "David RR Webber
(XML)" <> wrote:
Team,
How does this relate to ebMS v3
?
http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-mtom/
Is it just
transparent - in that if two ebMS are using SOAP 1.2 with MTOM - then they
can exchange transmissions accordingly - but controlled by the CPA and ebMS
settings? Or is MTOM re-inventing ebMS routing and handling and
therefore likely to cause chaos?
Trying to figure out the
implications here!
Thanks, DW
"The way to be is to do" -
Confucius (551-472 B.C.)
