Final Summary on [ebxml-cppa] Comments on reliable messaging in the1.0.5 draft

[Dale Moberg <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>]

Here is what I hope is my final remark in this thread.
I corresponded with David F. off-line to make certain
I understood what concerned him. I think David is basically
worried about using synchronous modes of transport, but
more specifically, about handling exceptions when the
connection is "lost" before a reply (response MSH signal or
BusinessLevel Response etc.) gets back. 

Currently this is just an error and
would force trying again. David wishes to have special exception
handling for a situation in which the data has arrived OK,
and a response is available, and the connection dropped.
His proposal is to send the response asynchronously when
this exceptional case is encountered. The advantage is
a resource usage optimization--the need to retry is
diminished.

My proposal is that such an agreement about exception
handling, and fallback in Transports to be tried, might
be handled using a CPA, rather than as part of a protocol
specification. However, this functionality might not
make it into the CPPA 1.1 version. CPPA already can
describe agreements to use alternative transports within
a service binding. Basically David F's convention could
be a special flavor of this alternative transport
agreement.