Re: [ebxml-msg] Re: Comments on the 1.09 about ConversationId

[Dan Weinreb <dlw@exceloncorp.com>]

   Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 13:39:43 -0600
   From: David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com>

   Yes Marty, absolutely.  I think there are potential problems (discussed below)
   which make MessageOrder quite fragile.  

But being "fragile" is the inherent flip side of "providing stronger
guarantees".  That is, if you ask for a higher degree of service,
naturally there are more things that can disrupt that service.  For
example, if you ask for authentication, then there's a whole new kind
of error that could not happen before, namely "the authentication
check failed".  If you ask for encryption, then you are subject to
failures like having the wrong key, having an expired certificate,
etc.  So if you ask for message ordering, then there are also new
errors if the messages come out of order and if some don't come at
all.

					   I am shuddering over the thought of
   changing the persistDuration rules depending upon whether or not MessageOrder is
   present (wouldn't this constitute a CPA override!).

I agree that it would not be good to change the persistDuration rules
depending on whether or not MessageOrder is present.