RE: T2 Success Codes

["Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>]

I agree with Chris. The fact that a message was returned with no errors,
indicates that the original message was received, validated - as far as the
MSH can - and no problems were found.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: christopher ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 8:32 AM
To: David Fischer
Cc: Burdett, David; ebXML Msg
Subject: Re: T2 Success Codes


This isn't a clear requiremnent (to communicate the nature of
successes). The fact that a message is acknowledged means something
specific for purposes of effecting reliable messaging, not
application or any other manner of MSH functionality successes.

Cheers,

Chris

David Fischer wrote:
> 
> That's intesting because IMO such things as signature verification are MSH
> level.  In fact we have error codes indicating security failures thus we
should
> have success codes indicating security success.  I very much agree that
there
> are many successes which will be application level.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> David Fischer
> Drummond Group.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: christopher ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 6:34 AM
> To: David Fischer
> Cc: David Burdett; ebXML Msg
> Subject: Re: T2 Success Codes
> 
> David,
> 
> We did not define success codes. If anything, these would be
> application level codes, not MSH-level codes.
> 
> Now, in the BPSS specification, there are a number of message
> patterns defined, which have specific messages/signals associated
> with these message patterns. These aren't defined *intentionally*
> by the MS specification. These are defined by the BP specification
> because they aren't necessary to the core processing of the MSH.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris
> 
> > David Fischer wrote:
> >
> > I don't see any Success Codes or a place to put them.  There should be a
way
> to put different
> > success codes in both the Acknowledgement and the DeliveryReceipt
elements.
> There may be several
> > different kinds of success like Processed/PassedOn or
Processed/Dispatched or
> > Processed/SignatureVerified or Processed/DecryptSuccess or....  These
could be
> the value of the
> > element or they could be in a sub-element.
> >
> > It is probably not sufficient to just get an Acknowledgement back
without the
> granularity of
> > different success codes.  I don't want to have to create an entirely
separate
> bodypart just to put
> > in a success code?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > David Fischer
> > Drummond Group.