Re: [ebxml-msg] FW: [ebxml-msg-comment] Public Comment

[Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>]

Farrukh Najmi wrote:

> Dale Moberg wrote:
>
>> Dale> I am not certain what this means. The ebMS registry can be used to
>> store ebXML information concerning business processes (BPSS instances)
>> as well as profiles for messaging (CPPs and CPA templates). In the CPPA
>> group, an editor's draft shows how a CPP could be used to support AS2,
>> but it is not released. So an ebMS registry may eventually support
>> profiles for AS2 if they emerge. If the question was, can a Registry be
>> accessed using AS2, I think the answer at the moment is "no" [Including
>> Farrukh on the list for confirmation on this.]
>>  
>>
> Hi Dale,
>
> The ebXML Registry specifications describe the registry interface in 
> abstract using UML and then define normative bindings to ebMS, SOAP 
> and HTTP (rest). 

An important correction. I had forgotten that we had removed the ebMS 
binding from ebXML Registry 3.0 specs in the last couple of months . The 
reasons where:

-The current specs on ebMS binding were severely underspecified

-The current specs on ebMS binding were based on older versions of ebMS

-We had no one in TC who was willing to do the heaving lifting to fix 
the spec for ebMS binding in a compressed timeframe

-The regrep TC needed to get version 3.0 wrapped up

We have definitely seen a demand for ebMS Binding for the registry. We 
plan to add ebMS binding in a future version of the spec assuming we 
will get the help we need to do so. One of the biggest issues is that we 
need to get a template CPA defined for registry and registry client.
If anyone in the ebMS or ebCPPA TC are interested in helping define the 
ebMS binding please let me know. We can issue it as a separately 
approved normative document at any time independent of the core spec.

So at present there are only 2 normative bindings to ebXML Registry 3.0: 
SOAP and HTTP.

My apologies for the inadvertant mistake in my previous email. Thanks.

> Currently in ebXML Registry version 3.0 there is no normative AS2 
> binding defined for the ebXML Registry abstract interfaces. Such a 
> binding SHOULD be straightforward to do whether as part of a future 
> version of the specs or as an implementation specific feature. For 
> example, the freebXML Registry open source project is architected to 
> support such new bindings rather painlessly on the core registry engine.
>
> The ebXML Registry TC has not heard a demand for an AS2 binding to the 
> registry interfaces and protocols. We are a community driven standard 
> and if the demand exists for an AS2 binding we will definitely 
> consider it. Thanks.
>


-- 
Regards,
Farrukh