[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: T2: Reliable Messaging (point-to-point)
I have a comments/questions regarding POINT-TO-POINT reliable messaging implementation for ebXML MS 1.0. First, lets assume that Party A is sending a message reliably -- that the deliverySemantics have been set to OnceAndOnlyOnce and deliveryReceiptRequested to Unsigned (I don't think that Signed/Unsigned makes a difference for the example, actually) in the QualityOfService element in the MessageHeader. I am sending this message w/out intermediaries, so I am not making use of the Via or Acknowledgment elements, although I am populating the TraceHeader element as appropriate. Now, Party B receives the message. Now assume that there is NO REPLY from the application. Party B is required to send an "Acknowledgement Message" (section 10.3.2) which at a minimum has a MessageData element with a RefToMessageId of the received message. Since a deliveryReceipt is also requested, the MSH must also generate the DeliveryReceipt element in the ack message. My question concerns the service and action elements of this ack. Clearly, as there is no business-level reply, the service and action should not reflect any business or application level service & action. In section 10.3.3, the spec says that if an Acknowledgment element is being sent on its own then service MUST be set to: uri:www.ebxml.org/messageService and action MUST be set to Acknowledgment. What is the equivalent service/action for a DeliveryReceipt element being sent on its own?? (as set in the MessageHeader element for this ack message)?? Is this described in the CPP/BPSS since this is one of the "signals" that need to be processed by the MSH-application interface?? What would happen if the deliveryReceiptRequested was false, but the semantics were set to OnceAndOnlyOnce?? The minimal acknowledgement required only a RefToMessageId within the MessageData element -- any guidelines as to what should be used in the Service and Action elements in the MessageHeader? In general, I think that the Reliable Messaging section should be expanded to include the POINT-TO-POINT option where no Via or Acknowledgment elements are used, but deliveryReceiptRequested attributes are turned on. (i.e. there is no information about whether the reply is sync or not in the message header). Your guidance is greatly appreciated. Regards, Cait Cait Crawford B2B Integration IBM Research Hawthorne, NY catcraw@us.ibm.COM
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC