Re: T2 PLEAE READ - Suggested solution to RM Issues

[Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

Dan,

See my replies below.

Regards,
Marty

*************************************************************************************

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
*************************************************************************************



Dan Weinreb <dlw@exceloncorp.com> on 09/08/2001 11:04:17 AM

Please respond to "Dan Weinreb" <dlw@exceloncorp.com>

To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   chris.ferris@east.sun.com, ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:  Re: T2 PLEAE READ - Suggested solution to RM Issues



   Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2001 01:45:33 -0400
   From: Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>

   Let's be  careful.  IBM MQSeries is a proprietary protocol and
   implementation that assumes, at least for the purposes of reliable
   messaging, that all nodes on the path have it.  That enables it to
   guarantee exactlyOnce delivery with a minumum of fuss.

   ebXML does not have the luxury of that assumption.  We can't make any
   assumptions on the implementations of any of the nodes.

Why is that?

MWS:  Let me clarify.  I agree that we must assume that an IM node has a
properly implemented FROM MSH and a properly implemented TO MSH. What
we cannot assume is what goes on between those two MSHs because that is
outside the scope of the MS Spec.  Therefore, we must explicitly state
what the IM node must do to meet the requirements in the MS Spec for
reliable messaging.  For example:  "It is assumed that the IM node
reliably stores and forwards ebXML messages."  This is exactly what the
IBM HTTPR proposal states about intermediate nodes..

MWS:  Please note that IBM MQSeries is much more than a MSH.  It has a lot
more functionality above the message exchange layer.  That functionality
is guaranteed to exist all along the path since every node in the path
must have the whole functionality of MQSeries.

Why should we treat a node as an IM if it does not contain an
implementation of the ebXML MS protocol?

MWS:  See my above answer.

Can we assume that the "to" node correctly implements the ebXML
MS protocol?  If so, why can't we make the same assumption about
any node that we treat as an IM?

MWS:  See my above answer.