Re: RosettaNet Retry Parameter not Expressible in BPSS or CPP/A

[Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com>]

Marty:

RosettaNet retries are initiated by the public process (i.e., the B2B
middleware). I agree that the default retry value should be specified
at the BPSS level. However, it needs to be overridable at the CPP/
CPA level too. You are right that the DocExchange element may not
be the best home for this retry parameter.

The retry interval in the RosettaNet Implementation Framework is
governed by the timeToAcknowledgeReceipt parameter. Currently,
this is specified at the BPSS level. As I have indicated in an earlier
post, I believe that this should also be overridable at the CPP/CPA
level. I would prefer not to use the SubstitutionSet mechanism in the
BPSS specification as I am afraid that the latter can impede the
automated discovery of trading partners and the automated
negotiation of CPA's.

Thanks,
-Arvola

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>
To: Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com>
Cc: ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org <ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Thursday, August 23, 2001 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: RosettaNet Retry Parameter not Expressible in BPSS or CPP/A


>
>Arvola,
>
>Do you view the retries as being initiated by the Message Service or by the
>application?  If they are initiated by the Message Service, then I agree
>that DocExchange is the place for the specification.  If they are initiated
>by the application, then the specification really belongs in the BPSS.
>
>If the retries are initiated by the Message Service, then a single Retries
>element should be satisfactory.  It could be deleted from the
>ReliableMessaging element and added as a child of DocExchange.  Presumably
>RetryInterval would accompany Retries.
>
>Do these retries require a specifiable timeout value?
>
>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
>***************************************************************************
**********
>
>
>
>Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com> on 08/23/2001 04:38:43 PM
>
>To:   ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
>cc:
>Subject:  RosettaNet Retry Parameter not Expressible in BPSS or CPP/A
>
>
>
>Existing RosettaNet PIPs do not require exactly once delivery semantics.
>Asynchronous PIPs have a Retry parameter that governs how many additional
>retries a sender will send a message, if it has not received a Receipt
>Acknowledgement signal from the other party.
>
>Currently, BPSS does not allow for the specification of a retry count. At
>the CPP/A level, the only available retry parameter is associated with
>reliable messaging. It is not clear if RosettaNet should always use
>reliable
>messaging for all PIPs.
>
>Ideally, the DocExchange element should carry an alternate Retry element
>that is not tied to reliable messaging. Otherwise, it will be great fi
>extension mechanisms whereby namespace qualified extension
>elements/attributes can be added. This is an approach that is used both in
>SOAP and in the Message Service to provide extensibility.
>
>-Arvola
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
>