However we decide to generalize routing to the application, it is a version
2 matter, not a version 1.1 matter. We will have to give a lot of thought
to use cases and to getting the specification correct.
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
*************************************************************************************
"Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com> on 07/27/2001 07:44:32 PM
To: "'Arvola Chan'" <arvola@tibco.com>, christopher ferris
<chris.ferris@east.sun.com>, Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc: ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org, ebXML Msg
<ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: message routing
Arvola
Mapping the ebXML headers to headers of other popular protocols was one of
the ideas we had for 1.0 for which we ran out of time. On the other hand,
the inclusion of an�optional general "Business Process Id" as a URI to
hold a reference to the business process of which a message is part sounds
an obviously good idea as it will be generally applicable to many uses of
ebXML Messaging. Do you agree?
The question is should it be included in version 1.1 or version 2.0 of
ebXML ...
David