Transcript ebMS3_eTG_overview_v0_3

ebXML Messaging Version 3
Core Specification, AS4 Profile, new
Advanced Features
OASIS ebXML Messaging TC
Overview

Part 1: Core Specification


AS4 Profile


OASIS Standard, October 2007
OASIS Committee Specification, April 2010
Part 2: Advanced Features (2010)

OASIS Public Review Draft, August 2010
ebXML Messaging Version 3.0
Part 1: Core Specification
ebXML Messaging 2.0 & 3.0

Message Header with Business Metadata


Reliable Message Delivery





Digital Signature and Payload Encryption
Support for Non-Repudiation of Origin & Receipt
Leverages SOAP, MIME envelopes


At-Least-Once, At-Most-Once, In-Order delivery
Security


Identifies Business Partners, Transaction Semantics, Context,
Agreement, Properties, Payloads
XML, EDI, multimedia payloads
Multiple payloads per message
Transport Protocol Mappings for HTTP and SMTP
Composition with other eBusiness Components
New in ebMS 3.0 Core

Further Web Services Convergence






SOAP 1.1 or SOAP 1.2
SOAP with Attachments or MTOM
WS-Security 1.0 or 1.1
WS-Reliability 1.1 or WSReliableMessaging 1.1/1.2
Compatible with WS-I profiles
Meets new user requirements

SME endpoints, message partitioning
New ebMS 3.0 Concepts & Features

Processing Modes


Parameters for capturing, expressing, sharing
configuration choices, message QoS.
Message Pull Feature

Message Receiver is Polling the Message Sender


Benefit: Supports Small and Medium Size Enterprises


Consumer “receives” messages by pulling them from Sender
Occasionally connected, no fixed IP address, behind firewalls
Message Partition Channels


Messages assigned to channels
Supports priority handling
Message Pulling Feature
Deliver
Message
4
“Light”
V3 MSH
2
Pulled Message




Submit
Message
1
2
Generated by requesting MSH (not application)
Targets a channel, secured/ authorized for the channel
Pulled Message

1
Message queued for future pulling
Sender application need not be “pull-aware”
PullRequest Signal


3
Submit Message (for sending)


Pull-Capable
V3 MSH
Pull Request
3
Pulled message sent over HTTP response (if HTTP)
Sent Reliably (“Exactly-Once” delivery)
Restricted / Intermittent Connectivity
Pushed Message
Light
MSH 1
Pull Signal
Pulled Response
Roaming endpoints (e.g.
no static IP address), or
intermittently connected
Pulled
Message
Light
MSH 2
Deliver
MSH 3
Application
Submit
Response
AS4 Profile

Timothy ??
AS4 compared to AS2

Timothy ??
ebMS3/AS4 Implementations

OASIS successful use statements
(2007):


Axway, Fujitsu, NEC
Implementations



Cisco, Data Applications Limited, ENEA,
Flame Computing, Fujitsu
(Some others not yet public – to be
confirmed by Timothy)
Open Source: Holodeck

http://holodeck-b2b.sourceforge.net/
End User Adoption

Japan, Electronic Commerce ALliance for
Global Business Activity (ECALGA)



HL7 Version 3 Standard: Transport
Specification - ebXML


Japan Electronics and Information Technologies
Association (JEITA)
http://ec.jeita.or.jp/eng/modules/contents01/index.ph
p?id=3
http://www.hl7.org/v3ballot/html/infrastructure/transp
ort/transport-ebxml.htm
Textile, clothing, footwear industry in Europe

http://www.ebiz-tcf.eu/
ebXML Messaging 3.0 Part 2:
Advanced Features
OASIS ebXML Messaging TC
New features in Part 2

Multi-hop messaging (not in this presentation)



Message Bundling


Messages containing multiple user message units
Large Message Handling



Messaging across ebMS intermediaries
Supports SME-to-SME exchanges
AS2 restart and AS4 compression
New splitting, joining and message compression
protocol
Variants in MEP Execution

Selective pulling, alternate MEPs
Message Bundling
Message Bundling

High-end, optional feature



Motivated by need to support efficient (very) high
volume exchanges of (small) documents
Thin, generally useful, layer over core MSH
functionality that adds little complexity to an MSH
Typical applications:



High volume, non real-time transactions involving
small documents
Event reporting and data synchronization
Any legacy batch application
Message Bundling

A ebMS “bundle” contains
multiple “user messages”


Similar to EDIFACT concept
of “exchanges” containing
“messages”
SOAP with Attachments:

MIME envelope

MIME part

• eb3:Messaging
• Primary unit header
• Secondary unit(s)
header
• Other SOAP header(s) for
security, reliability etc.
A “bundle” has no identity:



Routing and processing
configuration is based on a
designated user message
unit (the primary)
Primary unit is first unit in
eb3:Messaging container
Other units are added as
secondary units
SOAP envelope / header


MIME part(s)


SOAP Body
Payload(s) related to primary
message unit
MIME part(s)

Payload(s) related to
secondary message unit(s)
Requirements and goals

Reduce MSH processing overhead (transport, security,
reliable messaging)



Units are submitted and delivered individually


Consistent interface for applications
Bundling configuration is a partner agreement feature



Bundled units are sent, forwarded and received as a whole
Both push and pull supported (sync not recommended)
Specify “compatible” units, max delay, size etc.
Error to report inconsistent bundles
Error and receipt signals reference individual units

Delivery policies define dependencies among units
Bundling and SOAP Processing

SOAP processing requirements:



Security




Bundling feature should impose limited changes to an existing
Core v3 engine and its security and reliability modules
Bundling should compose with multi-hop and split, join,
message compression features
Single XML Signature covers payloads and the
eb3:Messaging (including all units) and other SOAP headers
WS-Security signing and encryption keys are specified by
primary unit Pmode
Receipt signals are generated for each unit separately
Reliable Messaging


Bundling precedes RM processing: a bundle is a single RM
unit
Compatible with In-Order contract
Example

Message unit type A





Message unit type B and C





Compatible with A only
Max delay 60 seconds, max bundle size 5 MB
Size ranges from 10 to 40 KB
A messages units will never be secondary units, except with other A
units
Compatible with A, B and C
Max delay 10 minutes, max bundle size 5 MB
Size ranges from to 20 to 60 KB
B and C message units will be typically bundled with an A message
unit if one is submitted within 9 minutes; otherwise as B/C bundles
Message unit type D




Compatible with A, B, C and D
Max delay 15 minutes, max bundle size 5 MB
Size ranges from 1 MB to 8 MB
D message units may bundle with other units if they are small,
otherwise they will transmit as standalone messages
Sample log file fragment from a
bundling MSH (Sending MSH)
2010-08-02 22:16:12,006 INFO
[bsi.handleTimeouts:2609] Expired: [email protected] (no outstanding requests)
2010-08-02 22:16:12,006 INFO
[app.apply_bundling:35] Checking 4 units as
candidate secondary message units for [email protected] pmode a size 18
2010-08-02 22:16:12,007 INFO
[app.apply_bundling:44] 1280780220 Not bundling
unit [email protected] compatible pmode d time
left 48 but size is 5798 so combined size 5816 > maxsize 5000
2010-08-02 22:16:12,007 INFO
[app.apply_bundling:47] 1280780665 Bundling
secondary unit 1 [email protected] compatible
pmode d time left 493 size now 3413
2010-08-02 22:16:12,009 INFO
[app.apply_bundling:47] 1280780675 Bundling
secondary unit 2 [email protected] compatible
pmode b time left 503 size now 3455
2010-08-02 22:16:12,009 INFO
[app.apply_bundling:47] 1280780771 Bundling
secondary unit 3 [email protected] compatible
pmode c time left 599 size now 3477
2010-08-02 22:16:12,009 INFO
[app.apply_bundling:55] Formed a bundle containing
4 unit(s):
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Message Splitting, Joining
and Compression
Background and context


Size of B2B messages continues to increase…
Operational issues of (very) large messages:





Failed transfers cause unnecessary retransmission
of data
(Network) components impose size limits
Temporary storage of MSH
Delays in store-and-forward intermediaries become
unacceptable
Expensive overlap in infrastructures:



Web Services / ebXML / SOA-based exchanges
EDI / ebXML
Managed File Transfer (MFT) and its protocols
Large File Handling in ebMS 3

AS2 Restart feature



AS4 compression


HTTP feature rather than AS2 feature
Limited to “push”, no support for “pull” mode
Per payload compression
Split, Join, Compress protocol



Large message is split by sending MSH and
reassembled by (ultimate) receiving MSH
MSHs exchange “fragment” SOAP messages,
controlled by new MessageFragment SOAP
header
Optional full message compression feature
SOAP Processing


MessageFragment can be used by non-ebMS protocols
In ebMS 3 binding, splitting occurs:




Each fragment contains:




In ebMS 3 binding, a subset of the eb3:Messaging header to
support routing across intermediaries
A MessageFragment header
One payload containing a subrange of the input message
Compression option



After ebMS packaging (SOAP, MIME)
After bundling, if bundling is used
Prior to security and RM processing
Algorithm agreed among partners
Applies to complete MIME package (all payloads and headers)
Supports push and pull
Compose with Bundling

GDSN Case Study:




Other case studies


eCom 2.6 order (11 docs, 83K), UBL 2.0 (13 docs,
11.8K), bz2/zlib compression: worst case 8%
Comparison with payload compression:


23 sample GDSN 2.7 messages, total 306K
ebMS3 eb3:UserMessage header info added:
adds 19K (6%)
Total after bz2 compression: 13K, i.e. 4%
Best case 14%; worst case 25%
Bundle and split to “optimize” message sizes

E.g. rearrange 1000 messages, sizes ranging from
5K to 800MB, into 10MB fragments
Variants in MEP Execution
Selective Pulling

Selective Pulling

New mechanism to “pull” a specific message



E.g., the response message to a request (using its
eb3:RefToMessageId),
E.g. a subsequent related message (based on
eb3:ConversationId)
Alternate MEPs

New fallback mechanism for synchronous
exchanges

Mechanism to pull a response, if the MSH is aware it is
unable to produce a timely synchronous response
Summary
ebMS 3.0 (and AS4)

…..
Part 2: Advanced Features

Intermediaries


Bundling


Efficient high-volume message exchange
Split, join, compress and AS2 restart


SME-to-SME message exchange
Transfer very large messages and bundles
efficiently
Important functionality that today:



Only exists in (industry-specific) niche protocols
Is not in any WS-* based spec
Is now typically handled (and duplicate) at the
application layer
More Information

ebMS Version 3.0 Part 1: Core Specification


AS4 Profile


http://docs.oasis-open.org/ebxmlmsg/ebms/v3.0/core/os/
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ebxmlmsg/ebms/v3.0/profiles/200707/
ebMS Version 3.0 Part 2: Advanced Features

http://www.oasisopen.org/committees/download.php/38969/ebMS3Part2-CD01-PR01.zip
Backup Slides
B2B Gateway
Gateway
Or ESB
MSH 3
MSH 1
Request
Internet
Response
Light
MSH 2
One-Way
Web
Service A
Web
Service B
Async
Response
Web
Service C
JMS, MQ..
Message Partition Channels
Pull signal
Low-priority ServiceRequest
MSH
Customer
Service
MSH
High priority ServiceRequest
Support
Center
• Channels used for :
• Selective Transfer
• DataType Channels
• QoS Channels ?
• Yes, but not 1-1 with QoS
ProcessingMode
Channel
QoS
Questions?
In addition to common questions:
1. How does ebMS(V3) relate to other ebXML
specifications?
2. if ebMS 3 is so heavily based on WS standards, what
value does it add to using just plain WS?
3. How does ebMS V3 relate to WS-I Profiles?
4. What does ebMS V2/V3 do that AS2 doesn’t?
5. Isn't pulling replicating what POP3 servers do?
Question 1
How does ebMS(V3) relate to other ebXML specifications?


Compose with each other, but can be deployed separately (no
dependencies on each other)
Integration points:

V3 Message Exchange Patterns map to ebBP Business Transactions

V3 Processing Modes map to CPPA

CPAs used to configure MSH may be stored in, and retrieved from, Registry
Question 2
If ebMS 3 is so heavily based on WS standards,
what value does it add to using just plain WS?





Business Headers
Channels, Pulling, Non-repudiation of Receipt
Different message consumption styles (WSDL not
always appropriate)
Allows for a gateway architecture to decouple external
B2B and internally deployed WS
Future features (Part 2: routing, bundling…)
Question 3
How does ebMS V3 relate to WS-I Profiles?


V3 reuses SOAP, WS-Security, WS-ReliableMessaging,
and is subject to compliance with WS-I profiles
(BP1.0/1.2, BSP1.0/1.1)
V3 Conformance Profiles, defined in an adjunct
document, will state compliance with above profiles
(some yet to be finalized in WS-I: BP2.0, RSP1.0)
Question 4
What does ebMS V2/V3 do that AS2 doesn’t?





Some QoS like reliability.
Message pulling, channels (e.g. selective pulling)
Message Exchange Patterns, and their bindings to
business transactions
Ability to process WS invocations (SOAP intermediary
model)
Will use SOAP model for routing (part 2)
Question 5
Isn't pulling replicating what POP3 servers do?




There have been issues with SPAM on SMTP-based
solutions.
Pull feature is desirable, regardless of protocol used.
May not want to rely on 3rd-party (ISP) infrastructure.
Pull allows a better understanding and control of
message location and status at all times.
ebXML Message and WS-*
SOAP 1.1
2000
2001
SWA
ebMS1
2002
ebMS2
2003
BIP
2004
ISO 15000
SOAP 1.2
BP 1.0
MTOM
2005
WS-A
2006
2007
ebMS3 Core
BP 1.1
SSBP
AP
SOAP 1.22nd
2008
2009
2010
ebMS3 Part 2
BP 1.2
BP 2.0
2000
2001
2002
S/MIME
XML DSIG
XML ENCR
SWA
ebMS1
ebMS2
2003
BIP
2004
ISO 15000
BP 1.0
WSS 1.0
2005
WSS 1.1
2006
2007
ebMS3 Core
BP 1.1 SSBP
BSP 1.0
2008
WSSC 1.4
2009
2010
ebMS3 Part 2
BSP 1.1
RSP 1.0
AP
2000
2001
ebMS1
2002
ebMS2
2003
BIP
2004
ISO 15000
WS-Reliability 1.1
2005
2006
2007
ebMS3 Core
WS-RM 1.1
2008
WS-RM 1.2
2009
2010
ebMS3 Part 2
RSP 1.0