1. Convergence in Messaging Frameworks
Pim van der Eijk

2. Managed public and private processes: B2B/G2G integration
Enterprise Application Integration, Workflow Management
Participation in e-business (e-Government) collaborations
Public Process Rules Tier
IBM Patterns for e-Business

3. ebXML Technical and semantic interoperability
Modular, cohesive set of standards developed from 1999
Open Standards (OASIS, ISO and UN/CEFACT)
Initially over-hyped, now lacking visibility in the market place, despite some (very) large end user projects and increasing vendor support
Advanced functionality for secure reliable messaging, choreographed business collaborations, partner agreements and management
Focused on external integration (B2B, G2G)
ISO standards since 2004

4. ebXML modules ebXML Messaging (ebMS)
Secure, reliable business messaging
Version 2, certified interoperable messaging since 2002
Version 3, OASIS standard since October 2007
Collaboration Protocol Agreements (CPA)
Business service contract language
Partner agreements, service profiles
Business Process (ebBP)
Choreography of service/action invocations
Business Activity Monitoring (BAM)
Registry
Information Model and Services
Core Components
Information model for vocabularies and business documents

5. ebXML Messaging B2B application of Web and Internet standards:
Leverages SOAP, MIME Attachments, HTTP bindings
W3C XML Security and Encryption
Generic Business Document Header
Business Partners
Services and Business Transaction Semantics
ConversationId: Business Context
Applicable “Business Contract”
Payload information
Reliable Message Delivery
Once-and-Only message delivery
Security
W3C Digital Signature
Payload Encryption

6. Public Sector Deployments of ebMS
Norway, Social Security / Healthcare
UK, Healthcare
Netherlands
Justice, Police, Youth protection
OSB (“Government Service Bus”) ebMS profile
Sweden, Public Procurement
Hong Kong government

7. AS2 EDIINT EDIINT: EDI over the Internet
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) “Applicability Statements”
AS1: EDI using SMTP
AS2: EDI using HTTP
AS3: EDI using FTP
Wal-Mart endorsement of AS2 in 2002:
AS2 (RFC 4130) is now the de facto standard in electronic commerce
AS2 also user-preferred protocol for new areas
Data synchronization, tracking and tracing

8. How about public sector? G2G protocols
OSCI
“Online Service Computer Interface”
German public sector standard
SHS
Swedish public sector standard, developed at Statskontoret (Swedish Agency for Public Management)
eLINK
EU Commission, IDA, November 2004
SuwiML transactiestandaard
BKWI (Netherlands Social Security)
eLink:
OSCI
SHS
SuwiML

9. Web Services, WS-* Core standards: Advanced functionality:
SOAP, WSDL, UDDI
Advanced functionality:
Security: WS-Security, WS-Trust and WS-SecureConversation
Reliability: WS-Reliability and WS-ReliableMessaging
Transactionality: WS-Transactions
WS-I interoperability profiles

10. Web Services Deployments
Basic Web services profiles are widely used
Denmark “RASP” WS-* profile
France, PRESTO

11. Summary Today’s messaging environment is a mixed bag:
Pre-Internet protocols
EDIINT
Simple XML over HTTP
Government specific frameworks
ebXML Messaging 2.0
Web Services variants
Time for convergence?
Requirements?
SME(*) support, client-only endpoints
Intermediaries
Non-Repudiation of Receipt (NRR)
Large message support
(*) Including small-and-medium-size public sector agencies

12. ebXML Messaging 3.0 Web Services Convergence New features
SOAP 1.1 or SOAP 1.2
SOAP with Attachments or MTOM
WS-Security 1.0 or 1.1
WS-Reliability 1.1 or WS-ReliableMessaging 1.1
New features
Message Pulling (client-only endpoints)
Intermediaries
Non-Repudiation of Receipt (NRR)
Compression
Compatible with WS-I profiles
Basic Profile (BP), Basic Security Profile (BSP), Reliable Secure Profile (RSP)

13. ebMS3 - WS Protocol Convergence
History of ebMS shows alignment with Web Services from the very beginning, with a large step toward convergence occurring with v3.
Notice that in the period between v2 & v3, the SOAP stack has been standardized, the XML-based security mechanisms have been standardized and specialized for Web Services, and reliability functions have also reached (or are expected to any day now) OASIS Standard status.
In the meantime, the WS-I has been developing profiles and testing tools to aid in ensuring easy interoperability of multiple implementations. The ebMS 3 message structure and protocol is fully compatible with the requirements of these profiles.
SOAP 1.1 (May 2000)
SOAP with Attachments (Dec 2000)
SOAP 1.2 (Jun 2003)
MTOM (Jan 2005)
ebMS 1.0 (May 2001)
ebMS 2.0 (Apr 2002)
ebMS 3.0 (expected Aug 2007)
XML Signature (Feb 2002)
XML Encryption (Dec 2002)
WS-Security 1.0 (Mar 2004)
WS-Security 1.1 (Feb 2006)
WS-Reliability 1.1 (Nov 2004)
WS-ReliableMessaging (expected Jun 2007)
BP 1.0 (First Final, Apr 2004)
BP 1.1, SSP 1.0, AP 1.0 (First Final, Aug 2004)
BP 1.2 (Board Approval Draft, Mar 2007)
BSP 1.0 (Final, Mar 2007)
BSP 1.1 (WG Approval Draft, Feb 2007)
RSP 1.0 (in progress)
Despite all these emergent standards, there is still a need to write a specification that composes them and adds the other functionality necessary for a complete XML-based messaging middleware that not only complies with current WS standards, but also provides the business- level messaging semantics and other advanced features that have always been central to ebXML Messaging.
In the next few slides, we will describe some of the major new features that pertain to ebMS v3 only.

14. OASIS Standard Ballots in 2007, sorted descending by % positive votes
ebXML Messaging Services version 3.0, Part 1, Core Features
WS-BPEL (Business Process Execution Language)
DSS (Digital Signature Services)
WS-Trust
WS-ReliableMessaging
WS-SecureConversation
WS-Transaction
WS-Context
Election Markup Language (EML)
Content Assembly Mechanism (CAM)
OpenDocument 1.1
WS-SecurityPolicy 1.2
SAML Metadata Extension for v2.0 and v.1.1
Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA)
XML Localization Interchange File Format (XLIFF) 1.2

15. Requirement: client-only endpoints
Assumption in early work on ebXML and Web Services:
Message Sender = Client = “Active”
Message Recipient = Server = “Passive”
Assumes 24/7 available B2B server
Assumes incoming connections through firewall
Compare this to the model:
Recipient “actively” collects mail from server
is stored on server while client is off-line
Clients need not be on-line 24/7
No need to open firewall

16. ebMS 3.0 “Pull” mode Submit Message (for sending) PullRequest Signal
“Pulling”
V3 MSH 2
Pull Request
Pull-Capable
V3 MSH 1
Deliver
Message 4
Pulled Message 3
Submit Message (for sending)
Message queued for future pulling
Sender application need not be “pull-aware”
PullRequest Signal
Generated by requesting MSH (not application)
Targets a channel, secured/ authorized for the channel
Pulled Message
Pulled message sent over HTTP response (if HTTP)
Sent Reliably (“Exactly-Once” delivery) 1 2 3

17. Requirement: Intermediaries
Segmented (private) networks where point-to-point communication is not possible (routing)
Store-and-forward and store-and-collect messaging
Business added-value (message traceability, archival, timestamping)
End-to-end reliability
End-to-end security

18. Mixing intermediaries and “pull”
“Push-then-push” store-and-forward or streaming
Store-and-collect by mixing push and pull
Also allow a “pushed” message to be “pulled”
Compatible with business added-value services
Pull
Request 3
Submit
Message 1
“Light”
V3 MSH
Pull-Capable
Intermediary
Deliver
Message 5
Endpoint
MSH 2
Pushed
Message
Pulled
Message 4

19. Comparison: OSCI Intermediaries, Active Recipient

20. AS4: a B2B Web Services Profile
New project aimed at:
Creating the functional equivalent of AS2 by mapping those requirements onto the Web services platform.
Entry-level on-ramp for Web services B2B messaging.
Constrained profile for ebMS 3.0 and underlying WS-* standards, plus:
Non-repudiation of receipt
Large message support

21. Summary and Conclusion
Today’s environment:
A variety of messaging frameworks are in deployment
WS-* provides increasing sophistication and standards in the lower-levels of the stack
Some e-Government protocols have features not addressed in any current WS-* standard
ebMS 3.0 provides:
WS-* convergence
Supports requirements for “active” (pulling) messaging and non-repudiation
AS4 and intermediary profiles add support for interoperable transparent intermediaries, compression, NRR