Re: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in QualityOfServiceInfo

[christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>]

David,

I think that you must have misunderstood then.

DeliveryReceipt has ALWAYS BEEN a business level response
message.

Acknowledgment is not exclusive to use when there are
intermediaries. Acknowledgment is for MSH RM use exclusively.
We left DeliveryReceipt in the spec (actually calling out the
clear distinction between it and Acknowledgment) so as to provide 
for use for business "signals" ala RosettaNet as prescribed by BPSS.

ToParty != MSH 
"ToParty MSH" == MSH

ToParty == Application
FromParty == Application

This has always been the case. That is the reason for the
very clear distinction between ToParty and ToParty MSH.

The DeliveryReceipt, or NonRepudiationReceipt serve *business*
functions, not messaging functions. The source and target of a 
DeliveryReceipt is an application, the "ToParty", not the messaging
software.

Cheers,

Chris
David Fischer wrote:
> 
> No Chris, that's not what we decided.   We had long (heated) discussions about
> this in London and David (B) assured us that Acknowledgements were for
> intermediate hops only.  Acknowledgement (sp) only goes back to the previous
> hop.  This is why it is only in the Via.
> 
> The DeliveryReceipt in the MSH is absolutely not a business level receipt.  The
> only mechanism we have to do end-to-end RM is through DeliveryReceipt.  Section
> 8.14 says
> 
>         "The DeliveryReceipt element is an optional element that
>         is used by the To Party that received a message, to let the
>         From Party that sent the original message, know that the
>         message was received."
> 
> This is only for receipt purposes -- no business processes.  We even built in
> NRR (critical functionality IMO).
> 
> David Fischer
> Drummond Group.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris.Ferris@Sun.COM [mailto:Chris.Ferris@Sun.COM]On Behalf Of
> christopher ferris
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 11:58 AM
> To: David Fischer
> Cc: Martin W Sachs; ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in
> QualityOfServiceInfo
> 
> Note that DeliveryReceipt is orthogonal to RM. A message
> delieverd with BestEffort might require a DeliveryReceipt.
> The BPSS determines whether a DeliveryReceipt is necessary.
> 
> DelieveryReceipt is an application-level response/signal,
> not a function of RM. It is the responsibility of some
> "external" software agent to initiate a DeliveryReceipt.
> 
> What I mean by this is that the MSH itself, while it might
> be a part of a greater whole, is not responsible in and of itself.
> 
> The MSH is a concept and it is given certain responsibilities
> 
> How one implements an MSH, whether as a standalone peice
> of software or as part of a more comprehensive peice of
> infrastructure code is up to the implementer, not the
> authors of the MS specification.
> 
> In my mind, DeliveryReceipt is more a function of Stefano's
> BSI or IBM's BPF.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris
> 
> David Fischer wrote:
> >
> > Marty,
> >
> > The purpose of Acks is for hop-to-hop RM only.  The way it is set up now, once
> > the message passes a hop which is not able to handle RM or doesn't need RM
> (like
> > MQseries) then none of the remaining hops will do RM since there is no way to
> > reset AckRequested once it passes the unreliable hop.
> >
> > If intermediate-hop RM is not useful then why have Acks at all?  End-to-end RM
> > can be done strictly with DeliveryReceipts ;-).  But, I am not suggesting
> > getting rid of intermediate Acks, only getting rid of the AckRequested
> attribute
> > in Via.  We need intermediate Acks and we need intermediate-hop RM.  We don't
> > need end-to-end Acks because we already have DeliveryReceipt but they need to
> > act the same for RM.  By removing AckRequested and using only
> > DeliveryReceiptRequested, the integrity of the RM request is maintained
> > throughout the path.  Any hop which can do RM then will (unless overridden by
> a
> > local CPA).
> >
> > David Fischer
> > Drummond Group
> >
> > BTW, let's change Acknowledgment (or Acknowledgement) to Ack.  I liked that
> > idea!
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 9:26 AM
> > To: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Cc: "Chris Ferris"
> > Subject: RE: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in
> > QualityOfServiceInfo
> >
> >
> ********************************************************************************
> > *****
> >
> > 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
> >
> ********************************************************************************
> > *****
> > ---------------------- Forwarded by Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM on 08/07/2001
> > 10:25 AM ---------------------------
> >
> > Martin W Sachs
> > 08/07/2001 10:24 AM
> >
> > To:   David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com>
> > cc:
> > From: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> > Subject:  RE: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in
> >       QualityOfServiceInfo  (Document link: Martin W. Sachs)
> >
> > Again, be careful with the ACKS.
> >
> > If the To and From parties are separated from each other by intermediaries
> > A, B, C in series, and B can't do reliable messaging:
> >
> > a) It doesn't matter that B can't do reliable messaging if the reliable
> > messaging protocol is betwen the To and From parties' MSHs, which is what
> > it should be.  The job of hops A, B, and C is simply to move the message
> > along.  I suppose that the A-B and B-C hops could do their own reliable
> > messaging under the covers but, as I said in the earlier posting, if C
> > loses the message before forwarding it to the To party, then the fact that
> > A-B and B-C are doing reliable messaging is of no value.  The message still
> > won't get to the To party.
> >
> > b) Aside from that, if hop B-C is generally unreliable, reliable messaging
> > can still be done between the To and From parties.  However, the To party's
> > MSH may have a higher than normal frequency of retries because of the low
> > quality of hop B.
> >
> > 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
> >
> ********************************************************************************
> > *****
> >
> > David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com> on 08/07/2001 09:42:09 AM
> >
> > To:   christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
> > cc:   ebXML Msg <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > Subject:  RE: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in
> >       QualityOfServiceInfo
> >
> > How do you set SyncReply on a message-by-message basis?  If I understand
> > you
> > correctly, syncReply MUST apply to ALL transfers between two parties or to
> > None -- must always be the same.  I think we may want a little more
> > flexibility.
> > We allow this flexibility in multi-hop, why not in single-hop?
> >
> > In EDIINT, syncReply was always default to True and we occasionally would
> > change
> > to False for very large files -- allowing the connection to close rather
> > than
> > wait (potentially hours) for a very large file to be decrypted or the MIC
> > to be
> > generated for a NRR.  (Instead of syncReply, EDIINT calls this parameter
> > Receipt-Delivery-Option).  IMO, we need to allow for the unforeseen.
> >
> > In the case of ReliableMessagingMethod, I'm not even sure what this does or
> > why
> > we need it at all.  What does a value of "Transport" mean -- the spec
> > doesn't
> > say?  I assume it means just send the message and don't worry about RM
> > since
> > this hop can't handle it?  I think this will never be used but David seemed
> > to
> > think it was needed and I don't have any heartburn with that.  Since I this
> > sits
> > right next to SyncReply in the Ack, I included it in parameters which need
> > to be
> > allowed without an Ack.  Either way is fine with me.
> >
> > David.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: christopher ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 5:58 AM
> > To: David Fischer
> > Cc: ebXML Msg
> > Subject: Re: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in
> > QualityOfServiceInfo
> >
> > David,
> >
> > Where does this requirement come from? In the case of
> > syncReply, the CPA is what determines this. In the absence
> > of a CPA, then a virtual CPA applies.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > David Fischer wrote:
> > >
> > > There should be nothing in the Via which is not also in other headers.
> > Via
> > > should only be used for multi-hop intermediaries.  In the case of
> > SyncReply,
> > > there is no single-hop way of requesting SyncReply=true.
> > >
> > > Attributes SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod should also be in
> > > QualityOfServiceInfo.  They should retain their current defaults.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > David Fischer
> > > Drummond Group.
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> > > "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-msg-request@lists.oasis-open.org
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> > "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-msg-request@lists.oasis-open.org
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> > "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-msg-request@lists.oasis-open.org
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> > "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-msg-request@lists.oasis-open.org
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-msg-request@lists.oasis-open.org
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-msg-request@lists.oasis-open.org
begin:vcard 
n:Ferris;Christopher
tel;cell:508-667-0402
tel;work:781-442-3063
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Sun Microsystems, Inc;XTC Advanced Development
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:chris.ferris@east.sun.com
title:Sr. Staff Engineer
fn:Christopher Ferris
end:vcard