RE: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in QualityOfServiceInfo

[Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

David,

I think I am repeating myself but I have to reply here.  A message is sent
from a From party to a To party.  The only way to guarantee that it go to
the To party and was persisted there is for the ACK to be sent from the To
party's MSH to the From Party's MSH.  (and the only way for the From party
to be sure that it didn't get there in the absence of a business-level
reply is for the From Party's MSH to post a guaranteed delivery failure
notification where the From application can find it.

Certainly an adjacent pair of pass-through intermediaries can forward
messages between themselves reliably "under the covers" but I have no idea
why they would do so since they have no skin in the outcome.  The only ones
the outcome matters to are the From and To parties.

An intermediary which participates in the collaborative process is a whole
other ball of wax.  For that case, the intermediary is in fact the From
party for some messages and therefore is a RM endpoint.

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 03:58:47 PM

To:   ebXML Msg <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc:
Subject:  RE: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in
      QualityOfServiceInfo



I have to think RM can be both.  I would also think that, if they could,
the IM
should try to match the RM request of the end-to-end although we can't
require
this.  I believe the whole point is to be able to trace if possible
(remember
the FedEx Black Box discussion).

If RM is only end-to-end, why do we even need the Via?  I think we have to
allow
for all-of-the-above.

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 1:04 PM
To: Scott Hinkelman
Cc: HUGHES,JIM (HP-Cupertino,ex1); ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in
QualityOfServiceInfo


Scott Hinkelman wrote:
>
> I agree. RM is From <-> To.
> However, does this imply that if a CPA is used, and IMs are in the
> picture that multiparty (if an IM is a party) CPA is required? Seems to
me.
>
> Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
> XML Industry Enablement
> IBM e-business Standards Strategy
> 512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
> srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074
>
<snip/>

I disagree. The RM protocol is point to point. The QOS characteristic
is certainly and most definitely end-to-end. There is a clear distinction
in my mind between the two.

Cheers,

Chris

------------------------------------------------------------------
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