RE: [ebxml-msg] a less technical Pull slide

Good points. Here is an update that addresses most hopefully.

Regarding the discussion on alternatives (HTTP GET, SMTP variants…) I prefer not to get deep into that In a single slide. That could be orally communicated.

-jacques 

 

From: Moberg Dale [mailto:] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 8:05 AM
To: Jacques Durand; 
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] a less technical Pull slide

 

I think this will be useful but do have a few comments.

On the security points, issues with smtp or ftp based solutions might be discussed in a comparison (are you considering a pull case using smtp push and pop pull?)  (maybe also a contrast with HTTP GET rest solution also?) But is it really a security contrast? Spam is a nuisance and a waste of resources etc but to be a security threat it needs to be more than spam (or is interference or denial of service the security point?)

Also since we did spend some time on the “message store/queue” authorization problem, and it has been of interest to end user review communities,  I think you need to point out how the messages for a SMB/SME company cannot be “pulled” down by “a bad (external) guy”

The 3rd party infrastructure point (message store in a VAN flavor) is probably worth mentioning. But is it really a security point?

 

 

From: Jacques Durand [mailto:] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 9:14 PM
To: 
Subject: [ebxml-msg] a less technical Pull slide

 

(the slide from eTG deck was too much focused on the Pull mechanism, not its rationale)

ebMS3_pulling.png