Het document is bestemd voor architecten en ontwikkelaars die op basis van ebMS
gegeven willen uitwisselen via Digikoppeling. Zie onderstaande tabel bij welke
taken dit document ondersteunt. Alle Digikoppeling webservices die op ebMS
gebaseerd zijn, moeten conformeren aan de koppelvlakstandaard ebMS2. Deze wordt
tot in detail in dit document gespecificeerd. Het doel van dit document is
ontwikkelaars te informeren wat deze koppelvlakstandaard nu precies inhoudt en
waar zij zich aan moeten conformeren. Het gaat hierbij om zowel service
aanbieders als service afnemers.
Status van dit document
Dit is de definitieve versie van dit document. Wijzigingen naar aanleiding van consultaties zijn doorgevoerd.
Documentbeheer
Datum
Versie
Auteur
Opmerkingen
22-11-2011
2.4
Logius
-
09-06-2014
2.5
Logius
Redactionele wijzigingen
28-01-2015
3.0
Logius
TLS 1.0 t/m TLS 1.2
04-04-2016
3.1
Logius
Referenties naar Beveiligingsvoorschriften aangepast naar nieuwe Document Digikoppeling beveiligingsvoorschrift Requirement Item 4.1.8 (‘Z’ identifier) verwijderd
Dit document beschrijft de functionele specificaties voor Digikoppeling ebMS
Deployment Profile, onderdeel van Digikoppeling.
Het document is bestemd voor architecten en ontwikkelaars die op basis van ebMS
gegeven willen uitwisselen via Digikoppeling. Zie onderstaande tabel bij welke
taken dit document ondersteunt. Alle Digikoppeling webservices die op ebMS
gebaseerd zijn, moeten conformeren aan de koppelvlakstandaard ebMS2. Deze wordt
tot in detail in dit document gespecificeerd. Het doel van dit document is
ontwikkelaars te informeren wat deze koppelvlakstandaard nu precies inhoudt en
waar zij zich aan moeten conformeren. Het gaat hierbij om zowel service
aanbieders als service afnemers.
Afkorting
Rol
Taak
Doelgroep?
[MT]
Management
Bevoegdheid om namens organisatie (strategische) besluiten te nemen.
Nee
[PL]
Projectleiding
Verzorgen van de aansturing van projecten.
Nee
[A&D]
Analyseren & ontwerpen (design)
Analyseren en ontwerpen van oplossings-richtingen. Het verbinden van Business aan de IT.
Ja
[OT&B]
Ontwikkelen, testen en beheer
Ontwikkelt, bouwt en configureert de techniek conform specificaties. Zorgen voor beheer na ingebruikname.
Ja
1.2 Opbouw Digikoppeling documentatie
Digikoppeling is beschreven in een set van documenten. Deze set is als volgt
opgebouwd:
Figuur 1Opbouw documentatie Digikoppeling Tekstalternatief
Digikoppeling biedt de mogelijkheid om op een sterk gestandaardiseerde wijze
berichten uit te wisselen tussen service aanbieders en service afnemers. De
uitwisseling tussen partijen wordt in drie lagen opgedeeld:
Inhoud: Op deze laag worden de afspraken gemaakt de inhoud van het uit te
wisselen bericht, dus de structuur, semantiek en waardebereiken.
Digikoppeling houdt zich niet met de inhoud bezig, ‘heeft geen boodschap
aan de boodschap’.
Logistiek: Op deze laag bevinden zich de afspraken betreffende
transportprotocollen (HTTP), messaging (SOAP), beveiliging (authenticatie en
encryptie) en betrouwbaarheid. Dit is de Digikoppeling-laag.
Transport: deze laag verzorgt het daadwerkelijke transport van het bericht.
Digikoppeling richt zich dus uitsluitend op de logistieke laag. Deze afspraken
komen in de koppelvlakstandaards en andere voorzieningen.
1.3.1 Leidende principes
De koppelvlakstandaarden dienen te leiden tot een maximum aan interoperabiliteit
met een minimum aan benodigde ontwikkelinspanning.
Daarom wordt gekozen voor bewezen interoperabele internationale standaarden.
Digikoppeling maakt berichtenuitwisseling mogelijk op basis van de REST API, ebXML/ebMS en
WUS-families van standaarden inclusief de daarbij behorende verwante
standaarden.
Aan te sluiten overheidsorganisaties hebben aangegeven op een uniforme manier
(één stekker) te willen aansluiten aan Digikoppeling. Organisaties die
beschikken over eigen middleware (ESB, broker) kunnen de aansluiting aan
Digikoppeling, de adapters, in het algemeen realiseren via voorzieningen in die
middleware.
Een koppelvlak is een interface die volgens standaarden de gegevensuitwisseling
verzorgt. Het werken met vaste standaarden is essentieel voor een koppelvlak.
Hierdoor wordt implementatie vergemakkelijkt. Ook wordt het mogelijk diverse
soorten berichten door te sturen met een grote mate van interoperabiliteit,
omdat via de standaard afspraken over hun inhoud gemaakt is.
Een van de belangrijkste eisen die door de overheid gesteld worden bij de
inrichting van generieke voorzieningen is dat er niet veel maatwerk ontwikkeld
hoeft te worden, maar dat er van “off the shelf” commercieel of Open Source
geleverde software gebruik gemaakt kan worden. Voor Digikoppeling, dus voor de
logistieke laag, betreft dat het niet willen ontwikkelen van software voor de
adapters.
Dit doel kan bereikt (benaderd) worden doordat gekozen wordt voor internationale
(de jure of de facto) vastgelegde standaarden, die door “alle” leveranciers
interoperabel zijn geïmplementeerd. Een andere eis is dat met name afnemers
gebruik kunnen maken van één “stekker” (één logistiek koppelpunt).
1.4.1 Specificatie van de koppelvlakstandaard
De koppelvlakstandaard beschrijft de eisen waar de adapters aan moeten voldoen
om interoperabel met elkaar te kunnen communiceren. Digikoppeling gaat over
logistiek, dus over de envelop en niet over de inhoud. De hele set info die
tezamen nodig is voor een complete generieke Digikoppeling koppelvlakdefinitie
(Raamwerk Specificatie genoemd) bestaat uit:
interfacedefinitie “on the wire”, (voorbeeld)listing van SOAP headers, en
informatie over velden en hun specifieke inhoud.
1.5 Opbouw van dit document
Hoofdstuk 1 bevat een aantal algemene inleidende onderwerpen.
Hoofdstuk 2 bevat de kern van de standaard met achtergrond en gebruik van de
ebMS Deployment Profile.
Hoofdstukken 3 tot en met 5 beschrijven de parameters van het ebMS2 profiel
zoals dat gekozen is voor Digikoppeling.
Begrippen en afkortingen worden toegelicht in het document [Digikoppeling
Architectuur]. Deze zit in de Digikoppeling standaarddocumentatie.
Dit document specificeert de Koppelvlakstandaard ebMS2 voor
berichtenuitwisseling over Digikoppeling (voorheen OverheidsServiceBus) als een
toepassing van de EBXML-MSG standaard, de ebXML Message Service Specification
versie 2.0 [EBXML-MSG]. Digikoppeling is bedoeld als generieke infrastructuur
voor een grote variëteit aan diensten. Deze Standaard is daardoor eveneens
generiek en dient nader gespecialiseerd te worden voor specifieke berichtstromen
en diensten.
EbXML Messaging [EBXML-MSG] is bedoeld voor verschillende toepassingen en
faciliteert die diversiteit door een scala aan configureerbare features en
opties te bieden. Elk gebruik van ebXML Messaging in een bepaalde keten of
binnen een bepaalde gemeenschap vereist in de praktijk een bepaalde mate van
aanvullende standaardisatie. Aangezien veel van de configuratiefeatures in de
standaard optioneel zijn, moet precies gedocumenteerd worden welke onderdelen
ervan op welke manier toegepast zijn, om op de verschillende relevante niveaus
interoperabiliteit te realiseren. Die informatie is hier verzameld en
gepubliceerd als configuratiegids voor de gebruikers van Digikoppeling. Het legt
de overeengekomen conventies vast voor het gebruik van ebXML message service
handlers, de functionaliteit die van een implementatie verwacht wordt en de
details voor het gebruik van de standaard.
Een deployment specificatie is niet hetzelfde als een ebXML
samenwerkingsprotocol overeenkomst (ook wel aangeduid met een “Collaboration
Protocol Profile and Agreement) [ISO 15000-1]. Wel hebben sommige onderdelen van
een deployment specificatie gevolgen voor de specifieke invulling van
CPA-elementen.
2.2 Terminologie in dit document
Dit document biedt organisaties die gebruik gaan maken van Digikoppeling de
basis voor de configuratie van de ebXML Messaging software. Een correcte
configuratie is van belang voor het uitwisselen van berichten. Mocht er voor een
bepaald onderdeel geen specifieke richtlijn gegeven zijn, dan wordt dit
aangegeven met één van de volgende waardes:
Not applicable: Dit is voor onderdelen die niet relevant zijn voor
Digikoppeling, of voor mogelijkheden die niet gebruikt worden.
No Recommendation: geeft aan dat er geen wijziging of voorkeur voor een
bepaalde invulling van het onderdeel is op het algemene niveau waar dit
document zich op richt. Specifieke toepassingen van deze specificatie (voor
specifieke berichtstromen) zullen hier in sommige gevallen wel nog
aanvullende eisen voor stellen.
Pending: voor onderdelen die nog nader onderzocht worden en mogelijk in
toekomstige versies nader uitgewerkt worden.
2.3 Ondersteunde varianten
De ebXML Messaging 2.0-standaard is de basis van deze specificatie. Deze
standaard biedt een hogere mate van configureerbaarheid dan in
Digikoppeling-praktijk wenselijk is. Om redenen van interoperabiliteit, eenvoud
en overzichtelijkheid onderscheidt deze koppelvlakstandaard een drietal
varianten van uitwisselingen. Elke variant veronderstelt bepaalde
voorgedefinieerde keuzen voor parameters als synchroniciteit, beveiliging en
betrouwbaarheid en is daarmee een “profiel” voor ebXML Messaging.
Elke uitwisseling op basis van het ebXML Messaging versie 2.0 protocol over
Digikoppeling zal moeten voldoen aan één van de volgende Digikoppeling ebMS2
profielen:
Best Effort: dit zijn asynchrone uitwisselingen die geen faciliteiten voor
betrouwbaarheid (ontvangstbevestigingen, duplicaateliminatie etc.) vereisen.
Voorbeelden zijn toepassingen waar het eventueel verloren raken van sommige
berichten niet problematisch is en waar snelle verwerking gewenst is.
Reliable Messaging: asynchrone uitwisseling met ontvangst bevestigingen en
duplicaateliminatie door de ontvangende message handler*. Dit profiel is
onder meer geschikt voor alle berichtenstromen die leiden tot updates van
gegevensverzamelingen.
*: In bepaalde gevallen mag een acknowledgement synchroon verstuurd
worden. Zie par 4.4
End-to-End Security: op basis van Reliable Messaging of Best Effort wordt
een bericht beveiligd tussen de uiteindelijke Consumer en de uiteindelijke
Provider, ook wanneer er zich intermediairs bevinden in het pad tussen die
twee. Het betreft hier authenticatie van de Consumer organisatie, conform
het Digikoppeling authenticatiemodel, waarbij alleen de identiteit van de
Consumerorganisatie relevant is, en encryptie van het bericht onderweg. Voor
de authenticatie en encryptie wordt gebruik gemaakt van XML digitale
handtekening [xmldsig-core-20020212] en XML-versleuteling [xmlenc-core], conform ebMS2.0.
Voor alle profielen gelden de volgende eigenschappen:
Vertrouwelijkheid en authenticatie van zender en ontvanger wordt als volgt
gerealiseerd:
Voor Point-to-Point Security, door middel van twee-zijdig TLS op
transport-niveau (in het HTTP kanaal). (De toepassing ervan wordt dus ook
verplicht verklaard bij gebruik van security op berichtniveau.)
Voor End-to-End Security, door middel van signing (ondertekening) en
(optioneel) encryptie (versleuteling) op bericht-niveau in combinatie met
(point-to-point) twee-zijdig TLS in het HTTP kanaal.
De berichtenuitwisseling is in principe asynchroon: een business request
wordt in een eigen synchrone HTTP request/response sessie verzonden, terwijl
de acknowledgement en optionele business response via een separaat HTTP
request/response sessie verzonden worden. In bepaalde gevallen (zie 4.4) mag
een acknowledgement of een error synchroon verstuurd worden,
Businessresponses worden altijd asynchroon, in een separaat HTTP sessie
verzonden.
De onderstaande tabel geeft in essentie de eigenschappen van de verschillende
Digikoppeling profielen weer. Ten behoeve van het CPA register is de kolom 'CPA
Creation' toegevoegd. Voor alle profielen wordt twee-zijdig TLS gebruikt op
transport niveau (HTTPS).
Deze specificatie ondersteunt zowel One Way als Two Way
bericht-uitwisselpatronen (message exchange patterns, terminologie ontleend aan
[ebMS3]). One Way uitwisselingen ondersteunen bedrijfstransacties voor
informatieverspreiding en notificaties, die geen antwoordbericht
veronderstellen. Two Way uitwisselingen ondersteunen bedrijfstransacties van het
type Vraag-Antwoord, Verzoek-Bevestig, Verzoek-Antwoord en Handelstransacties
(zie [UMMR10], [UMMUG] voor informatie over het concept bedrijfstransactie
patronen). In het geval van tweewegsverkeer leggen de ebXML headervelden
(MessageId, RefToMessagId en ConversationId) de relatie tussen request berichten
en de corresponderende response berichten vast.
Deze specificatie gebruikt uitsluitend een Push binding aan het HTTPS protocol.
Dat wil zeggen dat het retourbericht in een tweewegscommunicatie via een
afzonderlijke HTTPS connectie verloopt, die is geïnitieerd vanuit de verzender
(=de beantwoorder). Het initiële bericht is dan verzonden in een eerdere HTTPS
connectie, die afgesloten is na succesvolle overdracht van het heengaande
bericht.
De keuze van het te gebruiken profiel is onafhankelijk van het uitwisselpatroon.
Het heengaande bericht en (in een tweewegsuitwisseling) het teruggaande bericht
kunnen naar keuze gebruik maken van het Best Effort profiel of het Reliable
Messaging profiel.
2.5 Beveiligingsaspecten
Deze specificatie maakt gebruik een aantal standaarden op het gebied van
beveiliging en voldoet op het moment van schrijven aan geldende richtlijnen en
best practices. Aangezien in de loop der tijd kwetsbaarheden kunnen worden
ontdekt in de cryptografische algoritmen waarop deze standaarden zijn gebaseerd,
is het van belang dat deze specificatie regelmatig op geldigheid hiervan wordt
bezien. De specifieke toegepaste referenties zijn beschreven in
Digikoppeling Beveiligingsstandaarden en voorschriften.
2.6 Format van dit document
Het OASIS Implementation, Interoperability en Conformance (IIC) Technical
Committee (TC) heeft voor deployment specificaties een sjabloon opgesteld
[Deployment Guide 1.1]. Dat sjabloon is al eerder toegepast door bepaalde
sectoren zoals handel (GS1) en gezondheidszorg (HL7), en wordt daarmee een
standaard manier van het beschrijven van configuraties. Dit document is
opgesteld aan de hand van dat sjabloon. Het is slechts een summiere beschrijving
van het specifieke gebruik van ebXML Messaging en bevat geen
achtergrondinformatie, motivatie, voorbeelden en andere informatie die nuttig is
voor het in de praktijk toepassen van deze specificatie.
Dit document is direct afgeleid van [Deployment Guide 1.1] en om praktische
redenen (grotendeels) in het Engels opgesteld. Leveranciers van producten en
diensten rond ebXML Messaging zijn bekend met dit sjabloon doordat het ook in
andere sectoren wordt gebruikt. Leveranciers kunnen aan de hand van dit sjabloon
eenvoudig nagaan in hoeverre hun product voldoet aan de gestelde eisen.
Dit document is niet (geheel) zelfstandig te lezen maar bedoeld om geraadpleegd
te worden samen met de technische specificatie [EBXML-MSG].
3. Profiling the Modules of ebMS 2.0
3.1 Core Modules
3.1.1 Core Extension Elements [ebMS 2.0] Section 3
Profile(s)
Usage: required/optional/never used in this profile
Best effort Reliable Messaging End-to-End Security
Support is required.
3.1.2 Security Module [ebMS 2.0] Section 4.1
Profile(s)
Usage: required/optional/never used in this profile
Best effort, Reliable Messaging, End-to-End Security
The Security Module is required in this profile. Security profile 3 [EBXML-MSG]/Appendix C must be used: “Sending MSH authenticates and both MSH's negotiate a secure channel to transmit data”. The HTTPS connection uses encryption to provide in transit confidentiality of the complete ebXML message and performs both certificate-based Client and Server authentication during the TLS handshake.
End-to-End Security
Security profile 8 [EBXML-MSG]/Appendix C must be used: “Sending MSH applies XML/DSIG structures to message and passes in secure communications channel. Sending MSH applies XML/DSIG structures to message and Receiving MSH returns a signed receipt.”
3.1.3 SyncReply Module [ebMS 2.0] Section 4.3
Profile(s)
Usage: required/optional/never used in this profile
Notes
Best effort
Never used in this profile
(empty)
Reliable Messaging
Optional used in this profile. All messages, including acknowledgments and error messages, are sent asynchronously, with the exception of cases as described in par 4.4.1. Only in specific cases can MSH signals (acknowledgements, errors) sent synchronously. See 4.4.1 for conditions.
Asynchronous messaging does not preclude fast response times, as is required to support interactive applications. Asynchronous messaging supports higher levels of scalability and supports scenarios where a response message may be sent minutes, hours or days after the initial request message. Asynchronous messaging may be combined transparently with store-and-forward intermediary
End-to-End Security
Optional used in this profile. See profile Best Effort or profile Reliable Messaging for details
Usage: required/optional/never used in this profile
Notes
Best effort
Never used in this profile.
The ebXML reliable messaging protocol is not used. Acknowledgment Messages must not be sent or requested, and the receiver should not eliminate duplicate messages.
Reliable Messaging
Required in this profile. Reliable Messaging profile 2, Once-And-Only-Once Reliable Messaging at the End-To-End level only based upon end-to-end retransmission.
In this profile the FromParty MSH (message origination) must request, and the ToParty MSH (message final destination) must send an acknowledgment message. The ToParty MSH must also filter any duplicate messages based on ebXML MessageId. Any intermediate NextMSH ebXML-aware nodes (see caveat in section 'Multi-Hop Module' in this chapter) have no reliable messaging functionality. Acknowledgment messages must not be consumed by any such intermediary but routed like any ebXML Message back to the original (true) sender.
End-to-End Security
Optional used in this profile. See profile Best Effort or profile Reliable Messaging for details.
(empty)
3.2.2 Message Status Service [ebMS 2.0] Section 7
Profile(s)
Usage: required/optional/never used in this profile
Notes
Best effort, Reliable Messaging, End-to-End Security
Optional. Message Status Service is not required in these profiles.
(empty)
3.2.3 Ping Service [ebMS 2.0] Section 8
Profile(s)
Usage: required/optional/never used in this profile
Notes
Best effort, Reliable Messaging, End-to-End Security
Ping Service is not required in these profiles.
(empty)
3.2.4 Message Order [ebMS 2.0] Section 9
Profile(s)
Usage: required/optional/never used in this profile
Notes
Best effort, Reliable Messaging, End-to-End Security
Optional. Message Order is strongly discouraged in these profiles.
Many organisations use message handlers that do not support this functionality. Therefore, it can only be used if communicating parties agree to this option in advance. This specification is limited to message service handler order functionality and does not preclude application-level in-order processing if sequence information is somehow provided at the business document level.
3.2.5 Multi-Hop Module [ebMS 2.0] Section 10
Profile(s)
Usage: required/optional/never used in this profile
Notes
Best effort, Reliable Messaging, End-to-End Security
Never used in this profile.
Multi-hop is the process of passing the message through one or more intermediary nodes or MSH's. An Intermediary is any node or MSH where the message is received, but is not the Sending or Receiving MSH endpoint. This node is called an Intermediary.
Is a specific standard used for party identification? Provide details. Example - EAN•UCC Global Location Number. Ref.: ISO6523 - ICD0088.
Partners who are going to use ebMS for the first time must use an OIN (Organisatie Identificatie Nummer) for identification. Partners who are already using ebMS and are using other identification schemes are allowed to use their identification: the type attribute must identify their identification scheme and must be different from urn:osb:oin. The use of their own identification should be temporary: the partner should start using OIN at a certain moment for identification using Digikoppeling. For non-production environments a suffix is allowed after the OIN to distinguish it from production (e.g. “_OTA” or “_T”)
OIN stands for Organisatie Identificatie Nummer and is maintained by Logius in the COR (Centrale OIN Raadpleegvoorziening). The number is unique and allows identification of partners, even if they are not themselves legal entities, but departments or units of larger organizations.
The OIN used for PartyId must be the same as the OIN from the end-party and should not contain the OIN from an intermediate party. In case the end-party is the same party that performs TLS, signing and/or encryption the OIN used for PartyId should be identical to the OIN used for the TLS-, signing- and/or encryption-certificate respectively. Hence, if the end-party does not perform TLS, signing and/or encryption the corresponding OIN’s may differ.
Should multiple PartyId elements be present in From and To elements?
(empty)
Is the type attribute needed for each PartyId, and if so, what must it contain? Example – within the EAN•UCC system, the PartyId element and type are represented using Global Location Number.<eb:PartyId eb:type="http:/www.iso.int/schemas/eanucc/gln"/>1234567890128</eb:PartyId>
The type attribute must be present and should have the fixed value. The following type attribute value has to be used in case of an OIN is used by the partner: urn:osb:oin
alignment
appears as PartyId element in CPA. (c) appears as PartyId/@type in CPA
Test References
(empty)
notes
ISO 6523 is an international standard registry of agencies issuing codes. Value 0106 in this registry identifies the Association of Chambers of Commerce and Industry in the Netherlands. The prefix urn:oasis:names:tc:ebxml-cppa:PartyId-type is used to indicate the issuing agency is an ISO 6523 registered agency. The type attribute allows unique identification of the agency that issues the number or code that identifies the partner. In theory, this mechanism allows multiple identification systems to be used in parallel, with no requirement that the codes in those systems do not overlap.
Are Roles defined for each party of each business process? List them, or provide a reference to the source of these values. Example – within the EAN•UCC system, approved values are specified by the EAN•UCC Message Service Implementation Guide.
Business process is out of scope for (this version of the) Digikoppeling. Within a single contract (CPA) between two Partners: - A Partner must fulfill one and only one role (a Partner cannot change its role within one contract). - A Partner can send messages (one or more) and/or receive messages (one or more). In case a Partner wants to use different roles, different contracts (CPA's) must be used.
Alignment
[Per-process; may reference Role values in BPSS [BPSS] definitions. Appears as Role/@name in CPA.]
All profiles: Best effort, Reliable Messaging, End-to-End Security
Header element(s)
/SOAP:Header/eb:MessageHeader/eb:CPAId
What identification scheme is used for the CPAId, and what form should it take? If it is a URI, how is it constructed? Does it reference a real CPA, or is it just a symbolic identifier? Example – within the EAN•UCC system, the value of the CPAId is the concatenation of the Sender and Receiver GLNs followed by a four digit serial number. 1234567890128 - GLN Party A 3456789012340 - GLN Party B 0001 - CPA Number between parties A and B
The proposed EAN•UCC is recommended as a good practice.
Alignment
Appears as CollaborationProtocolAgreement/@cpaid in CPA.
All profiles: Best effort, Reliable Messaging, End-to-End Security
Header elements
/SOAP:Header/eb:MessageHeader/eb:ConversationId
What is the user definition of a Conversation? What is the business criterion used to correlate messages considered parts of the same conversation?
[EBXML-MSG] requires that request messages, response messages, and any acknowledgments and error messages have the same value for ConversationId.
In case the MSH implementation gives exposure of the ConversationId as it appears in the header, what identification scheme should be used for its value, and what format should it have? If it is a URI, how is it constructed? In case the ConversationId is not directly exposed, but only a handle that allows applications to associate messages to conversations, if the value of this handle is under control of the application, what format should it have?
No recommendation made.
If BPSS is used, ConversationId typically maps to a business transaction. Is that the case? Does it map to a business collaboration instead?
No recommendation made. Business process is out of scope for Digikoppeling.
Test References
(empty)
Notes
ConversationId is a required ebXML message header element.
Although there is no requirement for an MSH to give control about MessageId to an application, some implementations may allow this. In this case, is there any requirement on the source of this ID? Any length and format restrictions when the ID is generated?
No recommendation made. The value of MessageId does not need to meet any requirements beyond the string format specified in [EBXML-MSG] and the global uniqueness constraint of [rfc5322].
Are Services (related groups of Actions) defined for each party of each business process? List them, or provide a reference to the source of these values. [Per-process; absent from BPSS definitions.] Is there a URI format scheme for this element?
No recommendation made.
Is there a defined "type" for Service elements? If so, what value must the type attribute contain?
The text content of the Service element must not contain white space.
Alignment
Appears as Service element in CPA Appears as Service/@type in CPA
All profiles: Best effort, Reliable Messaging, End-to-End Security
Header elements
/SOAP:Header/eb:MessageHeader/eb:Action
Are actions defined for each party to each business process? List them, or provide a reference to the source of these values. [Per-process; may reference BusinessAction values in BPSS definitions. Example – within the EAN•UCC system, approved values are specified by the EAN•UCC Message Service Implementation Guide. <eb:Action>Confirmation</eb:Action>
No recommendation made.
Alignment
Appears as ThisPartyActionBinding/@action in CPA.]
Test References
(empty)
Notes
The text content of the Action element in the header must not contain white space.
All profiles: Best effort, Reliable Messaging, End-to-End Security
Header elements
/SOAP:Body/eb:Manifest
How many Manifest elements must be present, and what must they reference? Does the order of Manifest elements have to match the order of the referenced MIME attachments? Any restriction on the range of value for xlink:reference (e.g. nothing other than content id references)?
Manifest elements must only reference business documents or other payloads that are included in the ebXML message as a MIME part allows for references to external message payloads (for instance, using HTTP URIs), which are logically part of the message, but not as a physical entity in the MIME envelope. This is never used in these profiles.
Must a URI whichcannot be resolved be reported as an error?
A Content Id URI reference that cannot be resolved must be treated as an error.
Alignment
(empty)
Test References
(empty)
Notes
XML or other business documents can have references to other resources that are not part of the ebXML message. It is up to the receiving application to interpret any such references.
(a) Appears as BusinessTransactionCharacteristics/@isAuthenticated=persistent and BusinessTransactionCharacteristics/@isTamperProof=persistent in CPA
Test References
(empty)
(empty)
Notes
Applications submitting data to, or receiving data from, Digikoppeling ebXML Message service handlers can perform signing at the message payload level. The ebXML Messaging protocol is payload-neutral and therefore supports signed payloads. In that case, the Digikoppeling is not aware of the presence of signatures and does not perform signature verification.
5.2.2 Profile Requirement Item: Persistent Signed Receipt
[EBXML-MSG] Section 4.1.4.2 Persistent Signed Receipt
Best effort Reliable Messaging
End-to-End Security
Header elements: /SOAP:Header/eb:Signature
Is a digitally signed Acknowledgment Message required? [Yes, for Security Services Profiles 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19-21. See the items beginning with Section 4.1.4.1 for specific Signature requirements.]
Not applicable.
Signing acknowledgements is required.
If so, what is the Acknowledgment or Receipt schema?
Appears as BusinessTransactionCharacteristics/@isNonRepudiationReceiptRequired=persistent in CPA.
Test References
(empty)
(empty)
Notes
(empty)
(empty)
5.2.3 Profile Requirement Item: Non Persistent Authentication
[EBXML-MSG]Section 4.1.4.3 Non Persistent Authentication
All profiles: Best effort, Reliable Messaging, End-to-End Security
Are communication channel authentication methods required? [Yes, for Security Services Profiles 2-5.] Which methods are allowed or required?
Client and Server authentication is required using HTTPS and TLS. The currently allowed protocol versions for TLS are described in Digikoppeling Beveiligingsstandaarden en voorschriftenNote: Message service handlers should NOT be able to operate in SSL v3 backward compatibility mode.
Alignment
[Appears as BusinessTransactionCharacteristics/@isAuthenticated=transient in CPA.]
Is selective confidentiality of elements within an ebXML Message SOAP Header required? If so, how is this to be accomplished? [Not addressed by Messaging Specification 2.0.]
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Alignment
[Appears as BusinessTransactionCharacteristics/@isConfidential=persistent in CPA.]
Test References
(empty)
(empty)
Notes
Applications submitting data to, or receiving data from, Digikoppeling message handlers can perform encryption at the payload processing level. The ebXML Messaging protocol is payload-neutral and therefore supports transport of encrypted payloads. However, any encryption and decryption of payloads is out of scope for these profiles.
5.2.6 Profile Requirement Item: Non Persistent Confidentiality
[EBXML-MSG] Section 4.1.4.6 Non Persistent Confidentiality
All profiles: Best effort, Reliable Messaging, End-to-End Security
Header element(s)
/SOAP:Header/eb:Signature
Are communication channel confidentiality methods required? [Yes, for Security Services Profiles 3, 6, 8, 11, 12.] Which methods are allowed or required?
The use of HTTPS and TLS is required. The currently allowed protocol versions for TLS are described in Digikoppeling Beveiligingsstandaarden en voorschriften Message service handlers should NOT support SSL v3 compatibility mode.
Alignment
[Appears as BusinessTransactionCharacteristics/@isConfidential=transient in CPA.]
All profiles: Best effort, Reliable Messaging, End-to-End Security
Header element(s)
/SOAP:Header/eb:Signature
Is a trusted timestamp required? [Yes, for Security Services Profiles 9-12, 15-17, 20, 21.] If so, provide details regarding its usage.
Not applicable
Alignment
(empty)
Test References
(empty)
Notes
Applications submitting data to, or receiving data from, Digikoppeling message handlers can perform timestamping. The ebXML Messaging protocol is payload-neutral and therefore supports timestamped payloads. However, this timestamping functionality is not part of the Digikoppeling functionality. Any valid ebXML Message must contain an eb:TimeStamp as part of the eb:MessageData.
Is SyncReply mode allowed, disallowed, or required, and under what circumstances? [May be process-specific.]
Not applicable.
SyncReply is restricted to none (default) or mshSignalsOnly (on condition) Condition for usage of msghSignalsOnly mode is: both parties MSH are able to activate syncReplyMode=msghSignalsOnly see also [Best Practice]
See profile Best Effort or profile Reliable Messaging for details
If SyncReply mode is used, are MSH signals, business messages or both expected synchronously?
Not applicable
If SyncReply mode used only MSH signals are expected synchronously
See profile Reliable Messaging for details
Alignment
[Affects setting of 6.4.7 syncReplyMode element. Appears as MessagingCharacteristics/@syncReplyMode in CPA.]
Test References
(empty)
Notes
Asynchronous messaging does not preclude support of a “near real time” response quality of service required for e.g. interactive applications. The ebXML MessageId and RefTo MessageId header elements encode correlation of request and response messages.
5.5 Module : Reliable Messaging
5.5.1 Profile Requirement Item: SOAP Actor attribute
SOAP Actor attribute: Are point-to-point (nextMSH) MSH Acknowledgments to be requested? [Yes, for RM Combinations 1, 3, 5, 7; refer to ebMS section 6.6. Appears as MessagingCharacteristics/@ackRequested with @actor=nextMSH in CPA.]
Not applicable.
Not applicable
Not applicable
Are end-to-end (toParty) MSH Acknowledgments to be requested? [Yes, for RM Combinations 1, 2, 5, 6. Appears as MessagingCharacteristics/@ackRequested with @actor=toPartyMSH in CPA.]
Not applicable.
It is required that the final recipient MSH returns a receipt acknowledgment message.
Optional: See profiles Best Effort or Reliable Messaging for details.
Is elimination of duplicate messages required? [Yes, for RM Combinations 1-4.]
Duplicate Elimination is never used.
Duplicate Elimination is required
Duplicate Elimination is optional. See profiles Best Effort or Reliable Messaging for details.
What is the expected scope in time of duplicate elimination? In other words, how long should messages or message ID's be kept in persistent storage for this purpose?
(empty)
Message ID's should minimally be kept in persistent storage to prevent duplicate delivery during the time interval in which the From Party MSH may be attempting to resend unacknowledged messages. The minimum is (1+Retries)*RetryInterval.
(empty)
Alignment
Appears as MessagingCharacteristics/ @duplicateElimination in CPA
Test References
(empty)
Notes
Message ID's in ebXML are based on [rfc5322], and must therefore be globally unique, which in theory prevents accidental re-use of ID's for distinct messages. Factors like system load, disk space, database table limitations, period maintenance schedules may be used in message purging policies. Cleaning message ID stores often (temporarily) affects responsiveness of a system.
5.5.4 Profile Requirement Item: Retries and RetryInterval
[EBXML-MSG]Section 6.4.3, 6.4.4 Retries and RetryInterval
Best effort
Reliable Messaging
End-to-End Security
Header elements: /SOAP:Header/eb:AckRequested/
(a) If reliable messaging is used, how many times must an MSH attempt to redeliver an unacknowledged message? (b) What is the minimum time a Sending MSH should wait between retries of an unacknowledged message?
Not applicable
Some organizations using the Digikoppeling may not have 24x7 support for their ebXML Messaging services. A system crash may not be remedied until the next working day. Where possible, the values of Retries and RetryInterval should be set to allow reliable delivery of messages even after prolonged unavailability. If no value is defined by the parties, a value of 5 days is used.
Depends on the use of best effort or reliable messaging.
Alignment
(a) [Appears as ReliableMessaging/Retries in CPA.] (b) [Appears as ReliableMessaging/RetryInterval in CPA.]
Test References
(empty)
Notes
If reliable messaging is used: Some ebXML messaging software products have a transport retry mechanism, in addition to the ebXML retry mechanism. In this case the ebXML retry interval should be set in such a way that any such transport retries have been completed first.
How long must data from a reliably sent message be kept in persistent storage by a receiving MSH, for the purpose of retransmission?
Not applicable
Depends on the retry interval as defined in the particular collaboration, defined by the involved parties. If no value is defined by the parties, a value of 5 days is used.
Depends on the use of best effort or reliable messaging.
Alignment
[Appears as ReliableMessaging/PersistDuration in CPA.]
All profiles: Best effort, Reliable Messaging, End-to-End Security
Header elements
Are any store-and-forward intermediary MSH nodes present on the message path?
Endpoints connecting to the Digikoppeling must be able to operate in Endpoint mode. They attempt to deliver inbound messages locally, and may treat any exceptions as failures. They are not required to support any forwarding of ebXML Messages to other business partners.
What are the values of Retry and RetryInterval between intermediate MSH nodes?
Not applicable. Any Digikoppeling-level intermediaries must not support reliable messaging, in order to not interfere with end-to-end reliable message delivery. Message handlers must not request nextMSH receipt acknowledgments and such requests should be ignored by any ebXML intermediary. The ebXML intermediaries also should not filter duplicate messages. As with business messages, any Digikoppeling-level ebXML intermediaries should attempt to forward end-to-end receipts and errors.
Alignment
(empty)
Test References
(empty)
Notes
In case Best Effort is used: Any Digikoppeling-level ebXML intermediary may support transport retries, for instance to handle temporary TCP or HTTP transport level errors. This is not required. In case Reliable messaging is used: This profile uses end-to-end reliable messaging. This allows the Digikoppeling to recover from any temporary processing failures at the level of intermediaries. Upcoming versions of the Digikoppeling may support store and forward ebXML intermediaries at an infrastructure level. The functionality of these intermediaries is likely be limited to fully transparent, asynchronous store-and-forward routing of ebXML Messages, with the exception of cases as described in par 4.4.1. In the default asynchronous case, no special processing is required of endpoints in the presence of any such intermediaries, as compared to direct point-to-point connections, other than supporting connection to/from the URL and client and server TLS authentication details for the intermediary rather than the “true” sender/recipient. In case End-to-End Security is used: see the notes for Best effort of Reliable messaging.
All profiles: Best effort, Reliable Messaging, End-to-End Security
(Section 2.3.6) #wildcard Element Content: Are additional namespace-qualified extension elements required? If so, specify.
Not applicable. No additional namespace-qualified extension elements are required. The toPartyMSH and any intermediaries must ignore any extension elements.
(Section 2.3.7) Is a unique “id” attribute required for each (or any) ebXML SOAP extension element, for the purpose of referencing it alone in a digital signature?
Not applicable. Digital Signing is not supported.
(Section 2.3.8) Is a version other than "2.0" allowed or required for any extension elements?
These profiles are limited to ebXML Messaging version 2.0 [EBXML-MSG].
All profiles: Best effort, Reliable Messaging, End-to-End Security
MIME Header elements
Content-Type
Is the "charset" parameter of Content-Type header necessary? If so, what is the (sub)set of allowed values? Example: Content-Type: text/xml; charset="UTF-8"
UTF-8
Alignment
(empty)
Test References
(empty)
Notes
(empty)
5.11 HTTP Binding
5.11.1 Profile Requirement Item: HTTP Headers
[EBXML-MSG] Appendix B.2.2 Sending ebXML Service messages over HTTP
All profiles: Best effort, Reliable Messaging, End-to-End Security
Header elements
MIME parts
Is a (non-identity) content-transfer-encoding required for any of the MIME multipart entities?
Content transfer encoding should not be used.
If other than "ebXML" what must the SOAPAction HTTP header field contain?
The value of the SOAPAction HTTP header field MUST be “ebXML”
What additional MIME-like headers must be included among the HTTP headers?
Additional MIME-like headers should not be included with the HTTP header. Any ebXML MSH should ignore any such additional HTTP header.
All profiles: Best effort, Reliable Messaging, End-to-End Security
Header elements
MIME parts
What client behaviors should result when 3xx, 4xx or 5xx HTTP error codes are received?
In the event of an HTTP 5xx error code, the MSH must behave according to the recommendations specified in [SOAP]. An HTTP 503 error code should be treated as a recoverable error (i.e. should not terminate any reliable messaging retries). Codes in the 3xx and 4xx ranges must be interpreted as errors.
Alignment
(empty)
Test References
(empty)
Notes
(empty)
5.11.3 Profile Requirement Item: HTTP Access Control
[EBXML-MSG] Appendix B.2.6 Access Control Header elements
All profiles: Best effort, Reliable Messaging, End-to-End Security
Header elements
MIME parts
Which HTTP access control mechanism(s) are required or allowed? Basic, Digest, or client certificate (the latter only if transport-layer security is used), for example. Refer to item 4.1.4.8 in Security section.
Access control is based on client certificate information only. HTTP Basic or Digest authentication are not supported.
Alignment
Appears as AccessAuthentication elements in CPA.
Test References
(empty)
Notes
(empty)
5.11.4 Profile Requirement Item: HTTP Confidentiality and Security
[EBXML-MSG] Appendix B.2.7 Confidentiality and Transport Protocol Level Security
All profiles: Best effort, Reliable Messaging, End-to-End Security
Header elements
MIME parts
Is HTTP transport-layer encryption required? What protocol version(s)? [SSLv3, TLSv1, for example. Refer to item 4.1.4.6 in Security section.]
Encryption is based on HTTPS and TLS. The currently allowed protocol versions for TLS are described in Digikoppeling Beveiligingsstandaarden en voorschriften Note: TLS implementations must NOT support SSL v3 backwards compatiblity mode.
What encryption algorithm(s) and minimum key lengths are required?
[EBXML-MSG] Appendix B.3.2 Sending ebXML Messages over SMTP
All profiles: Best effort, Reliable Messaging, End-to-End Security
Is any specific content-transfer-encoding required, for MIME body parts which must conform to a 7-bit data path? [Base64 or quoted-printable, for example.]
Not applicable. This specification only supports the HTTP transport protocol.
If other than "ebXML" what must the SOAPAction SMTP header field contain?
Not applicable. This specification only supports the HTTP transport protocol.
What additional MIME headers must be included amongst the SMTP headers?
Not applicable. This specification only supports the HTTP transport protocol.
Alignment
(empty)
Test References
(empty)
Notes
(empty)
5.13 Profile Requirement Item: SMTP Confidentiality and Security
All profiles: Best effort, Reliable Messaging, End-to-End Security
Header elements
MIME parts
What SMTP access control mechanisms are required? [Refer to item 4.1.4.8 in Security section.]
Not applicable. This specification only supports the HTTP transport protocol.
Is transport-layer security required for SMTP, and what are the specifics of its use? [Refer to item 4.1.4.6 in Security section.]
Not applicable. This specification only supports the HTTP transport protocol.
Alignment
(empty)
Test References
(empty)
Notes
(empty)
6. Operational Profile
This section defines the operational aspect of the profile: type of deployment
with which the profile which is mentioned above is supposed to operate with,
expected or required conditions of operations, usage context, etc.
6.1 Deployment and Processing requirements for CPAs
All profiles: Best effort, Reliable Messaging, End-to-End Security
Is a specific registry for storing CPA's required? If so, provide details.
Pending.
Is there a set of predefined CPA templates that can be used to create given Parties’ CPA's?
It is highly recommended to use the “CPA Register” facility. A web-based program is available by which CPA's are created and stored. See https://cparegister.minvenj.nl/logius See https://www.logius.nl/diensten/digikoppeling/documentatie for information about the CPA Creation facility (document is written in Dutch). In addition to this there is a Best Practices document with information about the use of CPA's.
Is there a particular format for file names of CPA's, in case that file name is different from CPA-ID value?
No recommendation.
Others
It is required to specify the resulting ebMS collaboration with a CPA. It is required that all actions within a CPA make use of (one and) the same default channel for sending acknowledgements. This default channel can only support one specific profile within a CPA (for instance either osb-rm-s or osb-rm, not both within one CPA). As a result, when there are actions which are based on different profiles (for instance osb-rm-s and osb-be) and the profiles for the acknowledgements are different as well (for instance osb-rm-s and osb-be), multiple CPA's must be created.
6.2 Security Profile
All profiles: Best effort, Reliable Messaging, End-to-End Security
Which security profiles are used, and under what circumstances (for which Business Processes)? [Refer to Appendix C of Message Service Specification. May be partially captured by BPSS isConfidential, is Tamperproof, isAuthenticated definitions.]
Security profile 3 [ebMS 2.0] Appendix C]: “Sending MSH authenticates and both MSHs negotiate a secure channel to transmit data” must be applied. The HTTPS connection uses encryption to provide in transit confidentiality regarding the complete ebXML message and performs both certificate-based Client and Server authentication during the TLS handshake.
(section 4.1.5) Are any recommendations given, with respect to protection or proper handling of MIME headers within an ebXML Message?
Not applicable. No additional recommendations made.
Are any specific third-party security packages approved or required?
No recommendation made.
Whichsecurity and management policies and practices are recommended?
Pending.
Any particular procedure for doing HTTP authentication, e.g. if exchanging name and password, how?
Besides the client authentication in HTTPS, no additional procedures are applied.
Others
(empty)
6.3 Reliability Profile
All profiles: Best effort, Reliable Messaging, End-to-End Security
If reliable messaging is required, by what method(s) may it be implemented? [The ebXML Reliable Messaging protocol, or an alternative reliable messaging or transfer protocol.]
Not applicable
Which Reliable Messaging feature combinations are required? [Refer to Section 6.6 of Message Service Specification.]
All profiles: Best effort, Reliable Messaging, End-to-End Security
(Section 4.2.4.2) Should errors be reported to a URI which is different from the one identified within the From element? What are the requirements for the error reporting URI and the policy for defining it?
No recommendation made
What is the policy for error reporting? In case an error message cannot be delivered, what other means are used to notify the party, if any?
Pending.
(Appendix B.4) What communication protocol-level error recovery is required, before deferring to Reliable Messaging recovery? [For example, how many retries should occur in the case of failures in DNS, TCP connection, server errors, timeouts; and at what interval?]
Pending.
Others
6.5 Message Payload and Flow Profile
All profiles: Best effort, Reliable Messaging, End-to-End Security
What are typical and maximum message payload sizes which must be handled? (maximum, average)
Some ebXML Messaging products have performance and scalability issues with payloads larger than a (single digit) megabyte in size. Some partners may need to bridge incoming ebXML Message flows to other (enterprise) messaging protocols which have message size limits. Firewalls and other networking equipment may also (implicitly) impose size limits.
What are typical communication bandwidth and processing capabilities of an MSH for these Services?
No recommendation made.
Expected Volume of Message flow (throughput): maximum (peak), average?
No recommendation made.
(Section 2.1.4) How many Payload Containers must be present?
Messages may contain one or more payload containers
What is the structure and content of each container? [List MIME Content-Types and other process-specific requirements.] Are there restrictions on the MIME types allowed for attachments?
Each payload container will get a MIME type reflecting the type of the ‘content’ it contains.
How is each container distinguished from the others? [By a fixed ordering of containers, a fixed Manifest ordering, or specific Content-ID values.]. Any expected relative order of attachments of various types?
No recommendation made.
Others
6.6 Additional Messaging Features beyond ebMS Specification
All profiles: Best effort, Reliable Messaging, End-to-End Security
Are there additional features out of specification scope, whichare part of this messaging profile, as an extension to the ebMS profiling?
No.
6.7 Additional Deployment or Operational Requirements
All profiles: Best effort, Reliable Messaging, End-to-End Security
Operational or deployment aspects which are object to further requirements or recommendations.
Pending.
7. Conformiteit
Naast onderdelen die als niet normatief gemarkeerd zijn, zijn ook alle diagrammen, voorbeelden, en noten in dit document niet normatief. Verder is alles in dit document normatief.
