[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa] View about assingned issues
I have a reply below to Saito-san's discussion. ************************************************************************************* Martin W. Sachs IBM T. J. Watson Research Center P. O. B. 704 Yorktown Hts, NY 10598 914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287 Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com ************************************************************************************* Yukinori Saito <y-saito@ecom.jp> To: ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org cc: "EDIgr)H.Sugamata" <sugamata@ecom.or.jp>, "EDIgr)K.Mizoguchi" <mizoguchi@ecom.or.jp>, 03/19/2002 08:17 "EDIgr)K.Wakaizumi" <waka@ecom.or.jp> PM Subject: [ebxml-cppa] View about assingned issues Followings are my view about assigned issues. 87: RosettaNet Retry Parameter not Expressible in BPSS or CPP/A I studied some RosettaNet PIPs (PIP2A1, PIP3A1, and PIP3A4) and PIP Specification Guide. These PIPs specify 'Retry Count' under 'Business Process Activity Controls' section. And the value of Retry Count of these PIPs is '3'. '3' is RosettaNet default value for asynchronous execution. Retry count means that if the Acknowledgement signal would not be received against originating business activity, the originator would send the originating business document again within the specified Retry count. I think this function means a kind of reliable messaging. The PIP Specification Guide categorizes Retry count as FSV parameter, not as BOV parameter. I think that RosettaNet PIPs had better just use ReliableMessaging element in CPP/CPA usually, like the recent CPP example. The recent CPP example (CPP-example-companyA-016.xml) is supposed to adopt RosettaNet PIP3A4 as Service and Action, and is adopting ReliableMessaging element. There are other subelements (RetryInterval element and MessageOrderSemantics element) other than Retries element under ReliableMessaging element of CPP/CPA. As the value of these subelements, CPP/CPA might adopt default value, e.g. PT2H and Guaranteed. In view point of BPSS, BPSS is a specification about business process level, not a specification about messaging level. Therefore I think it is reasonable for BPSS not to have Reliable messaging parameters, e.g. Retry parameter. MWS: Retries at the BPSS level relate to transaction failures, not to reliable messaging. In other words, the transaction failed although the message was delivered. This is a business process matter. Arvola can correct me if necessary but I understand that some RosettaNet PIPs do provide for business process level retries. 221: nonRepudiationOfreceipt attribute concerns business level ack I think this issue was resolved, as Marty mentioned by e-mail on March 18. 230: ds:Keyinfo subelement structure handled implicitly by deployment tool? The disposition indicates "Maybe resolved: Add "deployment software"". The following NOTE is already explained at '8.4.17.2 ds:KeyInfo element' in CPPA specification V1.10. "NOTE: Software for creation of CPPs and CPAs MUST recognize the ds:KeyInfo element and insert the subelement structure necessary to define the certificate." I think this NOTE explains about deployment software. If my understanding is insufficient, someone please add some suitable NOTE. Regards, Yukinori Saito --------------------------------------------------- Yukinori Saito Electronic Commerce Promotion Council of Japan (ECOM) E-mail: y-saito@ecom.jp Tel: +81-3-3436-7542 Fax: +81-3-3436-7570 --------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC