|
YES
... Sign me up for the ebXML Forum Newsletter
Email
Address:
ebXML Forum does
NOT send unsolicitied e-mail.
|
The
messaging is the message
A new white paper
finds ebXML beats other messaging technologies overall in meeting
technical and business needs ... but not by much
Making
choices about technology can get difficult for technical experts.
So imagine the difficulties faced by business people when
they need to decide about messaging protocols for their
company or industry. To help business managers and
technical experts with this question, an ebXML committee
evaluated nine common business message technologies against a
series of business and technical criteria, and found the ebXML
Messaging specifications to best meet these needs overall.
While
one might be tempted to dismiss this exercise as 'home cooking'
the analysis shows ebXML Messaging only slightly ahead of the
value-added networks (VANs) used to carry EDI transactions. This
result suggests getting current EDI users to add or switch to
ebXML may take more than just secure and reliable messaging.
Nine
technologies rated
The ebXML
Joint Marketing Team, a group consisting of OASIS and UN/CEFACT
representatives, prepared a white paper with these findings –
available at
http://www.ebxml.org/ebxml_jmt/documents/wp_messaging_req_052303.pdf
-- under the direction of lead author David Webber. (Full
disclosure: The ebXML Forum editor serves on this team and
co-authored a book about ebXML with Webber.)
The
paper evaluated nine different technologies used to move discrete
business messages from one party to another:
1.
Smart fax. In this case the system includes the ability to
scan incoming messages and capture them in electronic form,
control the dial-in, route the messages to the a particular user
or output device, and require user identification, such as a PIN
number.
2.
Dial-in Interactive Voice Response (IVR). The more
sophisticated IVR systems have menu-driven features, the ability
control the workings of a telephone switch, can request a PIN and
related details to authenticate the requestor, and produce an
electronic transaction file reflecting the user's menu choices.
3.
EDI value-added network (VAN). The full-service VAN manages
transmission and delivery of EDI messages on a secure network.
VANs offer authenticated dial-up connections with secure FTP and
leased circuits for high-volume users.
4.
AS2, EDI over the Internet (EDIINT). Applicability Standard 2
or AS2 is a protocol in development since 1999 by an Internet
Engineering Task Force working group. While written as a means of
using the Internet for EDI messages, AS2 can also be used with
XML payloads.
5.
E-mail, Simple Mail Transport Protocol (SMTP). This solution
uses an SMTP server to send and receive business data in e-mail
messages. E-mail can include digital signatures and encryption,
and have the data in the messages extracted and integrated with
business applications, if the e-mail systems support these
features.
6.
Dial-in modem. The bulletin-board system (BBS) allows for
dial-in access, usually requiring a user name and password, and
may offer encryption as well. Modems may likewise support
recovery and restart. For file transfers, users upload files or
messages to the BBS, then retrieve files and messages of
interest.
7.
Web pages. On the Web HTML defined pages can use forms to
capture data and use the Secure HTTP (SHTTP) protocol for
authentication. The use of firewalls and Internet Protocol (IP)
address tracking can reduce the chance for fraud and protect the
integrity of exchanges between Web client and server.
8.
Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP). SOAP provides for
server-to-server exchanges in the style of remote procedure
calls, using an XML syntax and message format. While SOAP has no
built-in security, servers routinely add support for SHTTP,
firewalls, and IP address tracking, as indicated for Web pages.
This entry provides only for the basic SOAP message, without
enhancements or extensions. SOAP is becoming more widely
available and employed, through open-source tools from Apache, as
well as support through most leading Web services vendors. The
W3C is standardizing SOAP version 1.2, which is now a proposed
recommendation, one step from completion.
9.
ebXML Messaging (ebMS). The ebMS entry represents the current
version (2.0), which supports digital signatures and provides for
reliable messaging, including acknowledgments and persistent
storage. ebMS itself is based on SOAP, but uses an extension
called SOAP with Attachments that adds MIME envelopes to carry
any digitized payload.
The
white paper covered only cross-industry standards and
technologies, thus excluding industry-specific messaging, such as
the SWIFT/ISO15022 standards used for inter-bank transfers or
RosettaNet Implementation Framework in the electronics industry.
Technical
capabilities
The
white paper used 14 technology-oriented capabilities as criteria
for evaluating the messaging options, with each form of messaging
rated on a 10-point scale for its support of these capabilities:
Authentication/access
control, to ensure content is received from known sender.
Robust
delivery protocol support or message integrity, to guarantee
that data transmitted are also received exactly as sent
Delivery
failure recovery, to continue re-sends if messages are
unacknowledged, and recovery from most recognized delivery
system failures.
Packaging
control, ability to indicate the the start and end of content,
and the sections within the transaction, to the recipient
Message
structure validation, agreement between sender and receiver as
to physical interchange format required (e.g., DTD, XML Schema,
EDI interchange control)
Envelope
validation, ensures that the sender is recognized by the
recipient and that the sender is authorized to submit the type
of content transmitted
Signature
support, added security verification to validate sender, which
in many jurisdictions is also legally recognized as the
equivalent to a pen-and-ink signature
Encryption
support on envelope, prevents eavesdropping or gaining access to
communications details between the two parties
Encryption
support on payload, maintains confidentiality for the business
content of the message
Payload
structure validation, agreement between sender and receiver as
to physical content required (e.g., DTD, XML Schema, EDI Start
segment control)
Routing
support, allows content to reach the desired recipient based on
just physical addressing, but also features including deferred
delivery via third party, or broadcasting to multiple
recipients, or passing to correct back-end application(s)
Receipt
confirmation, acknowledgment that a successful delivery occurred
without any messaging errors
Back-end
application control, if errors occur after delivery of the
message, then the application-level error messages can be
communicated accurately back to the original sender.
The
analysis rated each of the technologies against each of the
capabilities, and arrayed the results on a grid. The grid showed
ebMS to lead the other technologies on several of the
capabilities: packaging control, message structure validation,
envelope validation, signature support, and encryption for the
envelope and payload. On two of the criteria, however, EDI VANs
garnered the highest score: robust delivery and routing support.
On the authentication, delivery failure recovery, payload
structure validation, receipt confirmation, and back-end
application control criteria, ebMS tied for the lead with AS2 or
EDI VANs.
Business-oriented
criteria
The
paper then rated (using the same 1-10 scale) the messaging
technologies on several criteria of more interest to business
people:
1.
Independently certified interoperability
2.
Open source or low-cost tools available
3.
Checks on completeness of data transmitted
4.
Flexibility and ease of integration or maintenance
5.
Accessibility to people with disabilities
6.
Activity tracking and audit verification
On
these more business-oriented criteria, the ratings showed more
comparability than differences, with ebMS leading on certified
interoperability and EDI VANs leading on activity tracking and
audits. The other criteria had no clear leader, and in the case
of access to people with disabilities, the findings showed ebMS
not providing any meaningful support.
By adding
together the business and technical scores, the results give an
overall picture for the nine technologies that covers their
relative value and suitability for business messaging. The total
scores show ebMS as the leader, but only a few points ahead of
EDI VANs; see the accompanying
chart from the report.
More than just
messaging
The
results show that ebMS can more than hold its own as a messaging
technology against the other leading choices, some of which have
been used for many years. Independent observers, in fact, are
beginning to sing the praises of ebMS. A story by David Longworth
about the steel industry e-marketplace Steel24-7's use of ebMS
appeared at the end of May on LooselyCoupled.Com, a site devoted
to Web services; see
http://www.looselycoupled.com/stories/2003/message-infr0528.html
.
The
author concluded, “As STEEL24-7 has discovered, it can also
help plug an embarrassing gap, in the web services standards
stack, by contributing a mature, vendor-neutral messaging
standard that adds security and reliability to the core web
services message format of SOAP.“
The
site's editor, Phil Wainewright went even further on his blog
that same day
(http://www.looselycoupled.com/blog/2003_05_25_lc.htm#200358404):
I
was somewhat surprised when David Longworth first filed this
article to discover how little I knew about ebMS, considering its
apparent and ready-to-go suitability for plugging this gaping
hole in the web services standards stack. In view of how much
debate has been expended on this topic in recent weeks, the lack
of hype surrounding ebMS is astounding. ....
Nevertheless,
as David's article this week makes clear, it would actually be
quite a smart move to bring the vast mass of EDI users into the
ambit of web services, and ebMS has been designed to do precisely
that. What's more, it's probably a mistake to dismiss the
combined experience of a global community that has been
attempting to perfect the art of enterprise-class e-business
messaging over the past several decades. They've probably learnt
a good few lessons about things that wouldn't even occur to you
if your only knowledge of messaging was based on what happens
within the sterile confines of a single enterprise network
computing environment.
But the
results also suggest that ebMS's value also may lie in being part
of the total ebXML package with registries, business processes,
partner agreements, company profiles, and core components. A
current EDI VAN user would likely need convincing from more than
just the capabilities of ebMS to make the jump to ebXML.
|