[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [ebBP] 10/15/2004: Final Recommendations Update on NOF and Exceptions
NOF summary accounts for: community input, use of Acceptance Acknowledgement, gaps that may exist in community strategies [1]. NOF typically occurs when [2]: * Use after timeout occurs (on RA, AA or TTP) * Use when you have conditional acceptance or when you can't tell the contract has been formed (i.e. no response received at timeout on time to perform). * Occurs when you are not under control (differentiates from general exception). * NOF doesn't rely on endsWhen. * When an offer is made and needs to be rescinded as the transaction failed. * If a timeout occurs and no/no more retries are available (and TTP has not expired). If retries still exist and a timeout has occurred, the offeror can choose to retry or NOF. We recognize several criteria and business requirements feed into providing a well-defined NOF capability and its impact on retries. It has been recommended we separate a logical path forward between v2.0 and a subsequent v3.0. For v2.0, we have discussed: * Leveraging the definition of an NOF via the defined BT patterns. See Notification pattern (UMM R10, Chapter 8-9). * Retain the business retry count for backward compatibility and understanding (although technically it is redundant). * Allow use of a variable to allow specification of the retry count (action David Webber with team review). [3] A few v2.0-scoped open questions exist (updated): * Could NOF be precluded under some circumstances where an AA is required (most often the case)? Answer: Yes. * If an NOF is a separate BT pattern in the future, preconditions may be required for its use. This may dictate significant constraint on the collaboration and the implementation. Are the tradeoffs understood and acceptable? Answer: Yes, partners agree to its usage. * If a retry occurs and the response occurs (cross one another), how do we achieve a consistent state? Answer: Still open. For v3.0: * Would a simple notification request to a partner be sufficient to at times, circumvent an unnecessary NOF? (Tell calls this a gentle reminder). Answer: Consider in v3.0 in order to gather more business requirements. * Gather more requirements or insight on concepts such as revocation of offer (incomplete in R10). Other efforts like UBAC may provide guidance in the future. Note that we have learned quite a bit through this process and there is more to go in a later version. We have taken some details, done further analysis and revised our thinking as even the historical details are incomplete, confusing or conflicting. All-in-all everyone has done a great job. I've separated from Exceptions (separate email to be sent). Thanks to everyone. Continue please to send details as they will be important to v2.0 and for later versions. [1] Such as RosettaNet not using AA. We've received feedback that the RosettaNet definitions need revision and interpretation in implementations differ. Therefore, we will continue to work collaboratively with that community. Inputs also received from financial services, telecomm, and retail. [2] Consistent with inputs from JB Clark, Yunker, and UMM R10 Chapters 8-9. [3] Action to David Webber still open ======================================================================================================= Here are some summaries that explain some of the UMM guidelines, inputs from various communities, and historical discussions about how to manage the use of NOF. Some revised over time as more information was available and understood. a. Summary 10/4/2004 (Martin): http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200410/msg00002.html b. Meeting notes, see Kavi Documents under Meeting Notes for 9/27/2004 and 10/4/2004: 9/27: http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200410/msg00000.html 10/4: http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200410/msg00006.html 10/11: http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200410/msg00061.html c. Working session on general exceptions and NOF 9/10/2004: Agenda and details: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200409/msg00065.html Session notes: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200409/msg00057.html Distinctions between NOF and exceptions: http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200410/msg00011.html d. Open archives for September and October are found at: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]