OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-msg message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: RE: FW: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod inQualityOfServiceInfo


Does that mean that each hop recognizes the Ack and also passes it on - sort of
double duty?  Hm... Sounds OK except for possibly one thing.  If there are say 6
hops, it sounds like that would mean node 2 would not get an Ack from node 3
until 6 => 5 => 4 => 3 => 2 etc.  Is this timing a problem?  I am not suggesting
it is, I am asking.  Since, in this case, 2 & 3 are doing RM between them, there
may be reties involved and the retryInterval has to be relatively short.  Could
this be a problem over each node sending an Ack when it receives rather than
waiting for the cascade Ack to come back?

Something like (Sum of IM retryIntervals) < (end-to-end retryInterval).

Retries would have to go all the way to the end.  You could have situations
where 2 reties to 3 at the same time 3 retries to 4 so 4 receives two identical
messages at the same time it retries to 5 so 5 receives three while retrying to
6 so 6 receives 4 retries (maybe 5 if 1 has a short retryInterval).  Sounds
nasty.  Maybe there's a way to avoid this?

Regards,

David Fischer
Drummond Group.

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 4:16 PM
To: David Fischer
Cc: David Burdett; ebXML Msg
Subject: Re: FW: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in
QualityOfServiceInfo



Several points are relevant:

1.  There is no way to request an end-to-end acknowledgment in the CPA.
The end-to-end acknowledgment should be mandatory. The CPA specifies
delivery semantics, retries, retry interval, an and message order
semantics.  It also specifies idempotency, which is not an option with
reliable messaging and should be deleted from the CPA. That's all.  With
delivery semantics of once and only once specified, use of ACKs should
follow from the RM spec.

2.  The possibility of needing two ACKs should be a clue that RM is not
specified properly for multihop.  What will the From party do with two
ACKs?  There should be only one ACK - from the To party's MSH, propagated
back through the multihop path.

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 08/08/2001 04:36:32 PM

To:   David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
cc:   ebXML Msg <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject:  FW: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in
      QualityOfServiceInfo



David,

Below I asked someone to show me how to request an end-to-end
Acknowledgement
without using a CPA.  I am waiting for someone to tell me to just set the
QualityOfServiceInfo deliverySemantics=OnceAndOnlyOnce and section 10.3.3
says
we MUST send back an Ack (reliableMessagingMethod cannot be set in
MessageHeader
but the default is "ebXML" anyway).  However, the Ack is to go back to the
previous hop not back to the From Party.  We could say there needs to be
two
Acks, one for the previous hop and one end-to-end, but that was the whole
reason
you suggested having a second Ack called DeliveryReceipt.  Should we now
dump
DeliveryReceipt and send two Acks?

My previous proposal was to dump AckRequested in Via and use one flag
(DeliveryReceiptRequested) for both behaviors instead.  Maybe we should use
deliverySemantics instead of AckRequested?

Regards,

David Fischer
Drummond Group.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Fischer [mailto:david@drummondgroup.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 10:56 AM
To: ebXML Msg
Subject: RE: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in
QualityOfServiceInfo


Chris, yelling the loudest does not make you right.  This is semi-amusing
because your references prove you wrong!  One of your references doesn't
even
mention the DeliveryReceipt element?  How can that be used as an argument?

As of right now, there is no method of sending an Acknowledgement from
end-to-end except with the DeliveryReceipt (please, someone correct me/show
me
how and then I will shut up).  I don't have any preference how this is done
as
long as it can be done.  If the DeliveryReceipt gets changed to something
it
wasn't, fine, but we then have to replace it or change the functionality of
something else to do the job -- we still have to have an MSH level
DeliveryReceipt or Acknowledgement.

Enough of this, I will answer only this once then I'm done.

. . . Comments in-line.

David Fischer
Drummond Group.

-----Original Message-----
From: christopher ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 11:58 PM
To: ebXML Msg
Subject: Re: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in
QualityOfServiceInfo


David,

I don't know what you're smoking. As for the history lesson, thanks,
but I was there.

<df> As was I, every meeting.  At some I was taking the minutes.  So?
I was listening while you yelled.

Actually, you were the one smoking... ;-)
</df>

The following references cite discussion that clearly demonstrates
that the team had felt that the delivery receipt is an application-level
response [1] [2] [3] [4] and that we endeavored to separate the two
so that it was clear that DR was not related to RM. I could have
dug up more fodder, but this is getting boring and it is late.

<df> Good references.  I wish I had used them to prove my point.  They
certainly
do not prove yours.
Yes, we realized we needed two separate acks if we were going to do
multi-hop.
This does not inherently make DeliveryReceipt a business level message.
More
comments on the references below.
</df>

The spec clarifies the distinction between the delivery receipt
and the acknowledgment in section 8.4.7.1. To wit:

     "The deliveryReceiptRequested attribute is used by a From Party
     to indicate whether a message received by the To Party should
     result in the To Party returning an acknowledgment message containing
     a DeliveryReceipt element.

     Note: To clarify the distinction between an acknowledgement message
     containing a DeliveryReceipt and a Reliable Messaging Acknowledgement:
     (1) An acknowledgement message containing a Delivery Receipt
     indicates the To Party has received the message. (2) The Reliable
     Messaging Acknowledgment indicates a MSH, possibly only an
     intermediate MSH, has received the message."

<df>Notice in the above quote, there is no mention of Business Level
processes
and also notice that the Delivery Receipt is an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT MESSAGE (it
says
it TWICE).  DeliveryReceipt is NOT for business level messages.  The
purpose of
the DeliveryReceipt is: "indicates the To Party has received the message"
NOTHING MORE.  There is nothing here about business processes or business
level
signals.

Since we have the syncReply method also available to us, a DeliveryReceipt
can
be included with a payload and that can be anything you like (business
signals
etc.) and since a DeliveryReceipt (8.15.8) can be on any message, the
notification to the From Party might be a part of a larger message.  This
does
not make the DeliveryReceipt element a business level message.
</df>

I think that this clearly supports my view. Note that the entire section
talks about the "To Party", not the "To Party's MSH" because, as I've
said before, the DeliveryReceipt is a business level response. A
"signal" in RosettaNet terms. It can be used for Nonrepudiation (signed)
purposes, or simply to provide for the receiving application to tell
the sending application (not MSH) that "the message was received... we'll
get back to you soon". All of this is provided for and prescribed in
a business process description using the BPSS. Maybe you should read
that spec as well.

The fact that the DeliveryReceipt and Acknowledgment were temporarily
siamese twins was merely a marriage of convenience because they shared
the same structure basically (although that has since evolved).

<df> No, they were Siamese twins because they served the same purpose for
two
different situations -- hop-to-hop and end-to-end.
</df>

Section 8.14 states:

     "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.
     The RefToMessageId in a message containing a DeliveryReceipt element
     is used to identify the message being for which the receipt is being
     generated by its MessageId."

Again, it clearly states "To Party" which equates to "application" which
means that it is a business level signal. Nowhere in this section will
you find any discussion of reliable messaging because it is completely
unrelated.

<df>Are you saying that the words "To Party" always mean the application
and not
the MSH?  What are you smoking?  What about section 8.4.7.2:

     If the To Party is unable to support the type of messageOrderSemantics
     requested, then the To Party MUST report the error to the From Party
     using an errorCode of NotSupported and a severity of Error.

This would mean the Application would be supporting messageOrderSemantic
and
sending back related errors?  NOT!  How about section 9.2.1 & 9.2.2 which
describes MSH level Ping & Pong?  Yet the spec says the response is sent:

     The message is then sent to the To Party.

The words "To Party" & "From Party" in these sections are used to describe
the
MSH, not an application.  BTW, Where is your definition defined in the
spec?

All the way through Section 10, the words "To Party" and "To Party MSH" are
used
interchangeably.  If you want to make such a distinction, we REALLY need to
go
through the spec.
</df>

A search of the Reliable Messaging section (10) in the spec turns up
a whopping 0 (zero) occurances of the word DeliveryReceipt. Is that clear
enough
for you?

<df> Yes, exactly.  RM was written from a multi-hop view and won't work
end-to-end.  That's what we are trying to fix.</df>

Regards,

Chris

[1] http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-transport/200104/msg00007.html
<df>This is the minutes of the meeting where DeliveryReceipt was added and
it
has nothing about the nature or description of the element</df>

[2] http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-transport/200102/msg00036.html
<df>This one talks about the "Delivery Receipt" that the BP group is
defining
but there is no mention of our DeliveryReceipt element at all.</df>

[3] http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-transport/200104/msg00045.html
<df>This is simply a quote from the current spec.  We discuss that
above.</df>

[4] http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-transport/200104/msg00047.html
<df>Yes, in his message Dick is understanding the implications.
DeliveryReceipt
is an Acknowledgement and he is concerned that we only need one (excerpt
from
link above):

  > When I read the proposed changes it appears that a
  > DeliveryReceipt is sent by the "To" party "to let the From party know
that
  > the message was received". This looks very similar to the purpose of an
  > "Acknowledgement", it simply acknowledges receipt of the data by the To
  > party, not that the data was delivered to the application. Is my
  > understanding of this change correct? If it is then we really only need
one
  > type of "Acknowledgement" (a delivery acknowledgement).

Yes, Dick understood EXACTLY what was happening.  He wanted a real Delivery
Receipt, not the thing we were defining.  We defined (and still have) an
MSH
level DeliveryReceipt.  Maybe we should have used another name for
end-to-end
Acks.  Who knows?
</df>

<df>End of Comments</df>

David Fischer wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> Prior to London (or around that time) we did not have Acknowledgements or
> DeliveryReceipts (there was a MessageType which could have a value of
> "Acknowledgement") so it was NOT always like this.  The original name of
the
> Acknowledgement element was IntermediateAck (must have been an
Intermediate
> Acknowledgement).  The original intent of DeliveryReceiptRequested was to
send
> back an Acknowledgement message (we didn't have the DeliveryReceipt
element
> yet).
>
> > The deliveryReceiptRequested parameter/element MUST be used by a From
> > Party MSH to indicate whether a message received by the To Party MSH
> > should result in the To Party MSH returning an acknowledgment message
> > containing an Acknowledgment element with a type of deliveryReceipt.
>
> This is your suggestion Chris (1/16/01).  Obviously the Original meaning
of
> DeliveryReceiptRequested was to send an Acknowledgement Message.  Let me
quote
> from David Burdett to Saha, Saikat  on 1/4/01 (RE: TRP spec 0.9a
> comments/feedback):
>
> >> 3. Synchronous Messaging spec,. DeliveryReceipt and IntermediateAck.
Why
> >> both are required? Last intermediary
> >> cannot produce IntermediateAck before it receives the DeliveryReceipt
from
> >> receiving MSH or intermediary nodes can create
> >> IntermediateAck before they receive any response from next node?
> > <DB>The whole idea of an intermediate ack is so that the intermediate
node
> > can return a response **before** they receive a reply from the next
> > destination. This is useful particularly if end-to-end transmission
times
> > are long. This way, the sender of the initial message can turn off
their
> > timeout and rely on the intermediate node notifying them if they could
not
> > deliver the message. To draw an analogy with the real world, if you go
to
> > FedEX or UPS, they give you a receipt immediately. You don't hang
around
> > until your package has reached its final destination. You also don't
keep on
> > pestering FedEx to ask them if the package has got through.</DB>
> ><DB>I could not follow these until I realised you are talking about 0.91
and
> > not 0.9a !!</DB>
>
> Chris, these have ALWAYS been Intermediate Acks and not end-to-end.  Let
me
> quote David Burdett on another message from the next day (1/5/01 -- RE:
> SyncReplyMode as defined in .91 is a misnomer):
>
> > I am also uncomfortable with having two parameters that imply
essentially
the
> > same thing. For example if deliveryReceiptRequested or
> > immediateAckRequested are both set to NONE, then a syncReplyMode of
> > AcksOnly or AcksAndResponse would be inconsistent. We really ought be
able
> > to avoid this sort of problem with the correct choice of parameters.
>
> > </DB>
>
> I still agree. David Burdett may prefer AckRequested rather than
> DeliveryRequested (David?).  I think whatever parameter we use, we need
only
one
> and it needs to be in the MessageHeader, not in Via (spec is broken if it
is
in
> an element which has actor=next).
>
> On 2/26/01 (RE: CPA and Overrides) David Burdett identified the
parameters
which
> pertained to individual hops:
>
> > 2. Parameters that apply to an indivual hop:
> > - syncReplyMode (or whatever it gets renamed as - Prasad?)
> > - errorURI
> > - reliableMessagingMethod
> > - AckRequeted (was IntermediateAckRequested)
>
> On 3/9/01 (Issue: We need separate acknowledgment and delivery receipt
elements)
> David Burdett added the DeliveryReceipt element:
>
> >>Section 8.13 Acknowledgment Element. I think we need to fix the
> >> acknowledgement element so that you can have, in one message,both:
> >>     a  "MSH acknowledgment" resulting from the ackRequested being set
to
> >> true, and also
> >>     a "DeliveryReceipt Acknowledgment" arising from
> >> DeliveryReceiptRequested being set to true.
> >>
> >> Currently if we have syncReply set to true (see lines 2444-7), then
> >> although both are requested, only one could be returned.
> >>
> >> Having two elements would solve this problem: the current
acknowledgement
> >> element and a separate Delivery Receipt element with essentially the
same
> >> structure but a different meaning. Changes required are as follows ...
>
> /..snip
> >>8.14 DeliveryReceipt Element
> >>
> >> The DeliveryReceipt element is used by a To Party that is the final
> >> destination of a message to indicate to the From Party, that sent the
> >> message, that the message has been received.
> >> The DeliveryReceipt element has the same structure and content as the
> >> Acknowledgement element (see section xx).
>
> Chris, this is not, nor has it ever been a business level Delivery
Receipt.
It
> has always been a DeliveryReceipt Acknowledgement.  I see that you have
always
> misunderstood this as in 4/16/01 you wrote (Re: comments on David's
proposed
> changes):
>
> > A DR is a very different animal. I respectfully disagree
> > with your assertion that we keep the From element in the
> > DeliveryReceipt with the rationale that it overly complicates
> > things from an implementation perspective.
>
> DR is not a different animal but you misunderstood from the beginning.
So, I
> went back and read all instances of DeliveryReceipt in the current spec
and I
> don't see what you are describing.  I see types of DeliveryReceipt
(signed |
> unsigned).  I see DeliveryReceipt in conjuction with a payload (as with
> syncReply=true).  I see that the DeliveryReceipt can be specifically a
> messageService service as in section 8.4.7.1:
>
>          the Service element MUST be set to
uri:www.ebXML.org/messageService/
>          the Action element MUST be set to DeliveryReceipt
>
> Chris, There is nothing in the spec describing your view of the
DeliveryReceipt
> element, nor is it born out in the eMail list.  DeliveryReceipt has
always
been
> an MSH level Acknowledgement message and Acknowledgement
(IntermediateAck) has
> always been for hop-to-hop RM.
>
> Sorry for the length.
>
> David Fischer
> Drummond Group
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: christopher ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 4:13 PM
> To: David Fischer
> Cc: Martin W Sachs; ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in
> QualityOfServiceInfo
>
> 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


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



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC