OASIS ebXML Messaging Services TC

 View Only

Re: [ebxml-msg] RE: The Return Path Problem

  • 1.  Re: [ebxml-msg] RE: The Return Path Problem

    Posted 11-12-2001 17:35
    
    Dan,
    
    You explained the situation very well.  I have just one comment.
    
    You said "It assumes that you never have two distinct MSH's within one
    "party" that both implement the same
    Service/Action.". It's really a naming thing.  David's assumption is that
    there are never two pieces of software with the same service and action
    names in the entire enterprise. In a company the size of, say, IBM or Sun,
    that would not be a reasonable assumption. The "who"-like information that
    you mention in your last paragraph is precisely the URL that gets the data
    across the internet to the destination enterprise and thence across the
    intranet to the system that supports the target application.
    
    Regards,
    Marty
    
    *************************************************************************************
    
    Martin W. Sachs
    IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
    P. O. B. 704
    Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
    914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
    Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
    Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
    *************************************************************************************
    
    
    
    Dan Weinreb <dlw@exceloncorp.com> on 11/12/2001 04:41:14 PM
    
    Please respond to Dan Weinreb <dlw@exceloncorp.com>
    
    To:    david.burdett@commerceone.com
    cc:    ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject:    Re: [ebxml-msg] RE: The Return Path Problem
    
    
    
    In my mind, the topic of your paper is closely related to the
    questions I've been asking about "how do you name an MSH" or "how do
    you name a party".  I think there has been some confusion about what
    we mean by a "party": is "ABC Co" is a party, or is "Order Management
    MSH" a party?  Marty seemed to be suggesting the latter, to which I
    replied that then a "partyId" would not be an identifier of a "party".
    
    It looks to me like you're assuming:
      -- ABC Co. is one "party".  Order Management MSH is not a "party".
      -- A "party" is identified by a "partyId" (i.e. each partyId denotes
     one specific "party".
      -- There is one CPA, between the "parties", so there isn't a separate
     CPA for the different paths shown in your figure 1-1.
    
    In your paper, you suggest using the Service and Action fields in
    order to figure out how to route the message.  It seems to me that
    there is a tacit assumption behind this suggestion, which I think
    needs to be made explicit.  It assumes that you never have two
    distinct MSH's within one "party" that both implement the same
    Service/Action.
    
    Is this really a safe assumption?  If a "party" might be a large
    corporation, the corporation could have many divisions, each of which
    provides the service "Purchasing" with the action "Submit PO".
    
    It seems to me that Service & Action are an assertion about *what* to
    do, not *who* is doing it.  For routing, we want to use "who-like"
    information.
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
    manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>