Subject: RE: What's the right forum for developing XML Messaging

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:26:43 -0500

Let me add a bit to this. Just for the record, I work for IBM, I'm on the
OASIS board,
and I'm Vice-Chair of ebXML.

IBM has participated in many of the fine efforts of the IETF. So it is
wrong to say in
any way that IBM is anti-IETF. We will continue to particpate in the IETF,
ebXML, OASIS,
W3C, HL7, IFX Forum, ...

The ebXML effort is a unique attempt by more than 100 people representing
over 50
companies, consortiums, and trade organizations to provide a coherent,
unified
infrastructure solution around XML for e-business. In order to relevant,
this work must be
done quickly and thus must synthesize quality work that has been done
elsewhere.
In some cases the work we do will be new, but we will always first look at
existing
art and we will work with other consortiums where appropriate. In the case
where the
other work is being done concurrently, we will endeavor to work together
with the
other consortium to create a final standard that is actually useful and
does not
divide the industry. We welcome all organizations involved to share in this
commitment. We welcome all companies and organizations who are not
involved to join us and create a positive result. We hope that their
involvement
from the inside will make the ebXML effort stronger and maximally
inclusive.
In my opinion, it does no person, company, or organization any good for
them
to use their lack of involvement as a poliical lever to criticize the
effort.

The messaging work being done within Rik's group is central to much of what
will come out of ebXML and is also likely to be one of the first
deliverables. I
therefore feel that the work must remain within ebXML. However, we welcome
the participation of the IETF and we are happy to have a dialog about how
we can most effectively use the resources of both organizations to produce
the highest quality result. We are very open-minded about the
structure of such a collaboration and in no way am I looking at this as
being an ebXML vs. IETF or an IBM vs. Microsoft issue. If others wish to
make it such, I would appreciate their open statements to this effect.

_____________________________________________________

Bob Sutor

        IBM XML Strategy and Technology Group: http://www.ibm.com/xml
        OASIS Chief Strategy Officer: http://www.oasis-open.org

        Office 716-243-2445 / Fax 716-243-1778 / Tieline 320-9138
        Cellular 716-317-6899 / Pager 1-800-946-4645 PIN # 1473757

"Rik Drummond" <[email-masked]>@lists.oasis-open.org on 02/13/2000
06:59:24 PM

Sent by:  [email-masked]

To:   "Dick Brooks (E)" <[email-masked]>, "David Burdett"
      <[email-masked]>
cc:   "ebXML Transport (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>,
      "IETF Trade (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
Subject:  RE: What's the right forum for developing XML Messaging

ibm and microsoft are at logger-heads... forcing a decision to go to ietf..
means ibm will not easily follow. forcing a decision to stay in ebxml means
that microsoft will not participate.... so we should not force a decision
by
stirring things up until we see if we can find a win/win. i am not sure one
exists... but then i am not done looking for one yet... best regards, Rik

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Dick
Brooks (E)
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 9:06 PM
To: David Burdett; Rik Drummond
Cc: ebXML Transport (E-mail); IETF Trade (E-mail)
Subject: RE: What's the right forum for developing XML Messaging

Rik, I wouldn't classify Dave's e-mail to TRADE as "forcing an either or
decision". Candidly, I'm not convinced the IETF is the right forum for an
XML standard. The IETF rules regarding RFC status of interdependcies, ref:
S/MIME,  could require us to make XML and other non-IETF standards IETF
RFC's first. As you know this can take some time.

At this juncture we know that XML Messaging is one of several fine
candidates in the running to become  the ebXML transport standard. We will
know if it's the best solution after our group has had time to evalute all
candidates in detail. I think the entire community would be best served if
we focus on identifying what is best for ebXML and when we know what the
best solution is we should pitch it to the appropriate standards bodies for
endorsement. Anything else is premature.

Dave, it really is a personal decision as to which effort you wish to focus
on and only you can make this call.

just my .02

Dick
http://www.8760.com

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of David
Burdett
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 6:21 PM
To: Rik Drummond
Cc: ebXML Transport (E-mail); IETF Trade (E-mail)
Subject: RE: What's the right forum for developing XML Messaging

Rik

I'm not forcing a "one or the other decision" I'm trying to be practical.
Right now IETF XML Messaging and ebXML TP&R are of just about identical
scope and at an identical stage of development. Therefore it does not
really
make sense for two groups of people to work in parallel on the same
activities that might result in competing specifications.

I'm also the editor on both initiatives as well as author of the XML
Messaging Requirements document that has just been published. So it will be
impossible and impractical for any work I do in one group to not influence
the other.

More importantly I do not have the time to work on both. So on a personal
level I have no option but to choose one or other of the initiatives to
work
on.

I therefore thought it only fair to draw to the attention of the IETF Trade
WG community the necessity for me to choose which initiative to work on as
well as point out the opportunity for the Trade WG members to get involved
in ebXML if they want to since I think it an important and worthwhile
open-standards initiative.

There is also an IETF Trade WG Meeting in Adelaide, Australia at the end of
March and I wanted to provide an opportunity for discussion on the email
list before the meeting as this will make any discussion in the Adelaide
meeting better informed.

There is also a possibility that I will not be able to make the Adelaide
meeting so email discussion within the IETF is in my view essential and
sooner rather than later.

As far as the other initiatives are concerned, then I agree that we need to
continue our co-ordination efforts with respect to, for example, SOAP and
EDIINT. I will be pleased to work with you in this regard.

Finally I think there are both benefits and disadvantages to both ebXML and
the IETF as forums for developing a "messaging" specification and welcome
the views of both the IETF and ebXML communities on this matter.

Regards

David
Editor IETF Trade WG & ebXML Transport, Packaging & Routing WG

-----Original Message-----
From: Rik Drummond [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 9:54 PM
To: David Burdett; IETF Trade (E-mail)
Cc: ebXML Transport (E-mail)
Subject: RE: What's the right forum for developing XML Messaging

David, you are trying to force an "either one or the other" decision.

I don't think that is appropriate at this time or the only option. An
option
exists where team leaders and workgroup leaders coordinate between the
ebXML
and the IETF groups that have possible charters in this area. They are:
EDIINT, soap, IOTP and possibly others.

I have been talking with Microsoft and IBM on the issue. it is too early to
tell if we can establish coordination and hence too early to decide on
"either one or the other".

Best regards, Rik
team leader ebXML transport and packaging team &
chair IETF EDIINT wg

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of David
Burdett
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 6:12 PM
To: IETF Trade (E-mail)
Cc: ebXML Transport (E-mail)
Subject: What's the right forum for developing XMl Messaging

To Members of the IETF Trade Working Group ...

The purpose of this email is to solicit opinions from the IETF Trade
Working
Group on the "best" forum for developing specifications for "XML
Messaging".

Although I have made one submission on this topic to this working group,
interest in developing this type of specification has also arisen within
ebXML which is a joint United Nations/OASIS development.

Clearly it does not make sense for two - probably competing -
specifications
to be developed in the same area. Hence this email.

The remainder of this email contains some background information on XML
Messaging and ebXML.

I encourage members of the Trade Working Group to make known their views on
these alternatives development forums.

Regards

David Burdett

Advanced Technology, CommerceOne
1600 Riviera Ave, Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596, USA
Tel: +1 (925) 941 4422 or +1 (650) 623 2888;
mailto:[email-masked]; Web: http://www.commerceone.com

======================================

The following provides:
*    a brief recap on XML Messaging
*    a more detailed explanation of ebXML, and
*    a brief evaluation of some of the advantages and disadvantages, as I
see it, for using either to develop specifications like "XML Messaging"

XML MESSAGING SPEC
==================
On 25th January an Internet Draft titled "Requirements for XML Messaging
Version 1.0 Release 00" was published (see
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-trade-xmlmsg-requirements-00
.
txt).

The objective of XML Messaging is to provide "... a generic approach to the
reliable, resilient, secure, tamper resistant, authenticated exchange of
XML
or other electronic documents over insecure, unreliable transport
mechanisms"

The requirements document suggested the development of a set of related
specifications that met the above requirement within the IETF Trade Working
Group.

So far I have received a few emails volunteering to get involved but no
other feedback.

EBXML
=====
"ebXML" stands for "electronic business XML" and is a joint effort between
the United Nations/CEFACT group and OASIS (more from http://www.ebxml.org/
).

The objectives of ebXML are
*    a worldwide project to standardize XML business specifications
*    develop a technical framework that will enable XML to be utilized in
a consistent manner for the exchange of all electronic business data
*    industry groups currently working on XML specifications have been
invited to participate in the 18-month project
*    inaugural meeting - 15-17 November, in California, 100 + attendees
*    follow up meeting - 31 Jan - 4 Feb in Orlando, Florida 120+
attendees
UN/CEFACT stands for the "United Nations Centre for the Facilitation of
Procedures and Practices for Administration, Commerce and Transport" (more
from: http://www.unece.org/cefact/). It is the management body for
"UN/EDIFACT - United Nations Directories for Electronic Data Interchange
for
Administration, Commerce and Transport" (more from
http://www.unece.org/trade/untdid/welcome.htm).

The important thing about UN/EDIFACT is that they developed EDI and bring
with them the whole EDI community. The EDI community now wants to move to
XML so that the automation benefits that EDI has brought to large companies
filters down to smaller and medium sized enterprises (SMEs).

A number of groups have been set up within ebXML to work on a variety of
different areas (see http://www.ebxml.org/project_teams/project_teams.htm).
One of these is called the Transport Packaging & Routing team (see
http://www.ebxml.org/project_teams/transport.htm). In the workshop last
week
the TP&R team defined the scope of its work as follows:
*    provide an envelope and header for routing of message content
*    define template sequences for the exchange of messages
*    provide support for payloads of any type of digital data
*    adopt security protocols that enable:
*    non repudiation of sending of messages and acknowledgements
*    privacy and integrity of communications between parties
*    authentication of senders of messages
*    control over access to services
*    support verifiable audit trails
*    provide mechanisms for reporting on errors or other problems
*    develop a messaging protocol for reliable message delivery
*    definine the information required that describes how to interact
with a service
*    develop a default method of usage that enables bootstrapping of
services

... and objectives of:
*    to enable any party to carry out integrated eCommerce transactions
with any other party anywhere in the world using their hardware and
software
vendor of choice
*    to persuade a wide variety of vendors to implement the approach
*    to not reinvent the wheel - re-use where possible
*    to enable existing "messaging" solutions to "bridge" to the ebXML
solution
*    to scale from SMEs to large companies
*    to scale from low power to high end solutions

Membership of the working group is completely open and there are no joining
fees - just like the IETF. The specifications of the working group, like
all
other ebXML deliverables, will completely freely available with no
restrictions (also just like the IETF) and will be published under a
"United
Nations" banner.

The method of working of the group is a mixture of email lists (see:
http://www.ebxml.org/participate.htm), weekly telephone calls and regular
meetings 3-6 times a year - this is more intensive than the IETF.

Finally, perhaps the most imporant objective of the ebXML Transport,
Routing
and Packaging work group is to try and get existing related initiatives in
the messaging area to converge. Although no firm commitments have yet been
made, organizations as diverse as IBM, EDIINT and RosettaNet have
participated actively in the meetings and email lists.

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
=============================
Some of the advantages and disadvantages that I see are as follows:
*    ebXML has already made some good progress in developing it's ideas
since it was formed and has a method of working that should result in the
faster development of specifications - i.e. it has momentum
*    ebXML's focus is business-to-business eCommerce -  which is probably
narrower than the general internet focus of the IETF
*    ebXML, although sponsored by the United Nations, is not an
established standards setting authority such as the IETF
*    both are equally open and the results produced by either should be
equally freely available for use.

In my view it does not make sense for both the IETF Trade Working Group and
the ebXML initiatives to continue.

Views and opinions of the members of this group will be welcomed.

David Burdett

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 07:28:33 -0500

David,

Exactly. Let's figure out how we can all work together rather
than making this an either/or situation.

Bob

Bob Sutor

David Burdett <[email-masked]>@lists.oasis-open.org on
02/15/2000 02:19:54 AM

To:   Robert S Sutor/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, Rik Drummond <[email-masked]>
cc:   "Dick Brooks (E)" <[email-masked]>, "ebXML Transport (E-mail)"
      <[email-masked]>, "IETF Trade (E-mail)"
      <[email-masked]>
Subject:  RE: What's the right forum for developing XML Messaging

Bob

You say ...

>>>However, we welcome the participation of the IETF and we are happy to
have a dialog about how we can most effectively use the resources of both
organizations to produce the highest quality result.<<<

Neither the IETF nor the ebXML have ANY resources. What they do have is
individuals who work for companies who aim to develop solutions to common
problems in an open way for the benefit of themselves, their companies and
the wider community.

Whether the individuals concerned work within the domain of the IETF or
ebXML is immaterial. If the same group of individuals work on essentially
the same problems from the same starting point in either forum then the end
result will be very similar.

I am actually neutral about whether work, such as the TP&R work, should be
done in the IETF or ebXML as I think either could work. What really counts
is finding a forum for a community of individuals representing the
companies
who will actually implement the solutions to work rapidly towards a common
end point. If we don't then we will risk the development of competing
standards which is in no-one's interest.

So what we are talking about here really is finding a governance structure
that works for everyone. Perhaps a joint governance approach between ebXML
and the IETF might be appropriate and helpful if one were possible to set
up.

I also know that individuals CAN't sensibly work to develop simultaneously
two solutions to essentially a single problem. Hence my original email.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2000 6:27 PM
To: Rik Drummond
Cc: Dick Brooks (E); David Burdett; ebXML Transport (E-mail); IETF Trade
(E-mail)

Bob Sutor

-----Original Message-----

just my .02

Dick
http://www.8760.com

-----Original Message-----

Rik

Regards

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Rik Drummond [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 9:54 PM
To: David Burdett; IETF Trade (E-mail)
Cc: ebXML Transport (E-mail)
Subject: RE: What's the right forum for developing XML Messaging

Best regards, Rik

-----Original Message-----

Regards

David Burdett

The following provides:

XML MESSAGING SPEC
==================

EBXML
=====

... and objectives of:

David Burdett

---

From: "Michie, Alan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 10:43:14 +1100

To Rik Drummond, Dave Burdett

Greetings from Australia

I am in favour of the approach suggested by Rik, and suggest we get on with
the next step.

I have previously emailed Dave Burdett, offering to give some assistance to
the group in producing a tight specification of the "generic approach" which
is outlined in his document ....xmlmessage "requirements".  I should be able
to assist in many parts of such a specification, although I am a relative
newcomer to the areas of security, tamper resistance and authentication.

Is there already a draft on which comments are invited or are you waiting
for someone to produce the first draft?

Regards

Alan Michie
Project Leader
eBusiness Program
Telstra Research Laboratories

> From:	Rik Drummond [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Thursday, 17 February 2000 12:43 am
> To:	David Burdett; [email-masked]
> Cc:	Dick Brooks (E); ebXML Transport (E-mail); IETF Trade (E-mail)
> I have spent the last week in discussions with various IETF wg chairs
> on the XML header issue. here is where we stand:
> 	- two of IETF wg's have CLEAR impact in this area: 1) EDIINT and 2)
> IOTP
> 
> 	- EDIINT has it in its charter
> 
> 	- IOTP has a proposal to put it in it charter
> 
> 	- IOTP chair has no problem with EDIINT leading the XML header
> 	requirements and definition effort over the next 6 months
> 
> 	- EDIINT needs to define these headers within its workgroup anyway
> 
> I propose the following:
> 	- EDIINT drive this effort unofficially from IETF'S point of view.
> 	I lead the ebXML transport team and am chair of the EDIINT wg...
> 	so this is completely doable and I thank will resolve many of the
> 	issues Dave Burdett has noted.
> 
> 	- I, with Dave Burdett the author of the XML messaging paper and
> 	the editor for the ebXML transport team, will coordinate the IETF
> 	and ebXML efforts to that we don't do it twice. (or three times)
> 
> 	- I suggest, we think of the XML messaging paper Dave has authored
> as
> 	under EDIINT wg for the next six months so that EDIINT will not
> 	have to do another one
> 
> 	- the resulting work from the requirements and the XML header
> definition
> 	will be issued through IETF'S EDIINT and IOTP wg's and the ebXML
> transport
> team.
> 
> 	- I Will investigate making this relationship formal between the
> IETF and
> ebXML
> 
> if this is not a problem with anyone, we will move forward quickly..
> 
> best regards, Rik
> From: David Burdett [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 1:20 AM
> To: [email-masked]; Rik Drummond
> Cc: Dick Brooks (E); ebXML Transport (E-mail); IETF Trade (E-mail)

---

From: "Michie, Alan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 07:59:10 +1100

David,

The group of people who developed IOTP have probably already decided what to
do about the choice between using plain DTD's or some form of schema which
allows element values to be described more precisely.

Can you tell me what has been decided and why or refer me to some
information on the web or in the email archive --- OR -- is the matter still
under consideration for the xmlmessage spec?

Thanks

Alan

> From:	David Burdett [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Tuesday, 15 February 2000 06:20 pm

---

From: "Smith, Chris " <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:05:52 -0500

As one of the "people who developed IOTP" (and also one who
'developed *using* IOTP') we did what almost all DTD users do.

We wrote a core schema as a DTD, and extended and refined it
to its finished form (that is 'usable form') using English.
I've noticed that a great many RFCs use this strategy as
well. It seems to have worked reasonably well.

As for xmlmessaging - I'm curious if others think that
'xmlmessaging' will be used solely for e-commerce. Myself - 
I think that's a rhetorical question! It will be used for
all kinds of things.

This was my original thought when David mentioned the
whole question of either/or - I figured that the IETF
side was appropriate to work on the core xmlmessaging,
while the ebXML would work on using it for e-business.

Of course, in later notes, I find that these two groups
are essentially the same people. This then raises a different
concern; the initial notes on xmlmessaging do not (and should
not!) say that it is only for e-business purposes. However,
it that is the only reason it gets developed at all, then I
would have a minor concern that we might not get the best
possible xmlmessaging spec available due to a focus on 
e-business.

I beginning to think that ebXML should go solve the problems
they need to solve - just don't pretend that you are solving
the generic xmlmessaging problem for everyone. If they *do*
solve it in a robust and reusable manner, great - then it is
available. Since most of the individuals (and their sponsoring
companies) are part of ebXML for e-business reasons, this makes
a lot of sense to me. This group wasn't formed to solve generic
problems, they were formed to solve e-business problems.

If an ebXML result ends up missing essential non-e-business features, 
then xmlmessaging will still have to be done separately.

However - if ebXML wants to use a generic xmlmessaging capability as
a foundation, then it seems quite appropriate that a separate group
work on that portion of it, and that they include all appropriate
requirements, not just the e-business ones.

------------------------------------------------------------ 
 Chris Smith                                +1.416.348.6090 
 Royal Bank                       [email-masked] 

> From: Michie, Alan [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: February 17, 2000 03:59 PM
> To: 'David Burdett'
> The group of people who developed IOTP have probably
> already decided what to do about the choice between
> using plain DTD's or some form of schema which allows
> element values to be described more precisely.
> 
> Can you tell me what has been decided and why or refer
> me to some information on the web or in the email
> archive --- OR -- is the matter still