Messaging Standard

Revision as of 20:15, 5 January 2019 by User (talk | contribs) (Message standards ensure that messages are robust, inter-operable and reusable for many business sectors and governments.)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

It should be clear what a messaging standard is—right? Well, the first issue here is that messaging means different things to different people, and so, unfortunately, does the word standard. Most of us naturally will think about networking when discussing messaging standards; however, messaging covers anything from a local platform-specific application-programming interface (API) down to a low-level communications interface such as NDIS. Other examples of messaging interfaces include POSIX threads, NetBIOS, RMI, CORBA, DCOM, XML Web services, Microsoft Windows' Winsock, UNIX's Berkeley sockets, and open data interface (ODI). The term message itself refers to any unit of information that has to be moved. A message might be composed of just application data, or data encapsulated in your own messaging layer (if, for example, the interface to which you are writing does not support all of the functions that you need). It is useful to note that one layer's message is another layer's data. In practice, messages have been called many things, including packets, frames, events, or fancier names like protocol data units (PDUs). The term standard also is not clear-cut and is widely interpreted in practice. There are true open international standards, de facto standards, and proprietary standards. True standards are usually defined by international standards bodies, or broad consortiums where "open" means that the standard has been forged by a community of interested parties, and these specifications should be available to anybody. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is perhaps the most open standards body in this area, because practically anyone can contribute, and all standards—even drafts—are available online at no cost. (Note that some organizations do charge a fee for their standards, and, while one can understand that resources do need support) De facto standards have become standards typically by virtue of their momentum, installed base, or the absence of any other useful alternative.For example, the FIX protocol started life in 1992 as a bilateral communications framework for equity trading between Fidelity Investments and Salomon Brothers, and has since become the de facto messaging standard for pre-trade and trade communications within the equity markets. How truly "open" and specified a de facto standard is might be highly variable and, therefore, could be open to interpretation. For example, Syslog is documented for informational use by the IETF, and several implementations have significant differences, requiring dedicated parsers.[1]


  1. What Is a Messaging Standard? Microsoft

Further Reading

  • Making messaging standards work: from definition to interoperability at runtime NCBI
  • Guidance on Messaging Standards for Ireland Hiqa
  • Standardization of Messages