[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in QualityOfServiceInfo
Thanks Marty, you wrote: Your proposal will reopen the whole discussion of what happens when an element in the message header clashes with an element in the CPA. I guess I will drop this discussion. We tacitly agreed that the message parameters would not override the CPA (if one existed). Then we promptly added VIA whose whole intention was to override the CPA of every hop along the path. We can already change the SyncReply of the end by including the Via element in a single hop. I was just trying to avoid that. Regards, David Fischer Drummond Group. -----Original Message----- From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 5:30 PM To: David Fischer Subject: RE: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in QualityOfServiceInfo David, Your proposal will reopen the whole discussion of what happens when an element in the message header clashes with an element in the CPA. If you are sending the large file as a requester, you might have the option of defining the collaboration protocol such that large file is sent using a separate business transaction which could then be associated with an "override" delivery channel. If you are sending the large file as a responder, then I am less certain if there is any alternative to overriding the CPA by specifying syncReply in the message header. 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 08/21/2001 11:58:02 AM To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS cc: ebXML Msg <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject: RE: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in QualityOfServiceInfo Yes, I agree. Make DeliveryChannelId tie to a unique address for v1.1. Normal mode, IMO, for HTTP will be SyncReply=True. However, there will be fairly common cases where there is a large file (100MB+, 500MB+) where we want to change SyncReply to False, just for this one message. My original premise has nothing to do with Delivery Channels. I wanted to be able to set SyncReply at send time. Chris brought Delivery Channels up as an alternative to having SyncReply in MessageHeader. I originally agreed but I am now convinced this will not work - at least not in v1.1. Back to the original topic... We need SyncReply in MessageHeader (in QualityOfServiceInfo -- see Subject Line). Regards, David Fischer Drummond Group. -----Original Message----- From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 10:36 AM To: David Fischer Cc: ebXML Msg Subject: RE: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in QualityOfServiceInfo David, As I explained in my response to Arvola, it appears that at present, each delivery channel must have a unique endpoint address. I suggested saying that in version 1.1 of the CPP-CPA spec and then working on associating multiple delivery channels with the same endpoint address (adding an additional element to disambiguate), if there is a good case for doing so, for version 2.0. We certainly want to avoid putting elements in the message header whose sole purpose is to make up for deficiencies in the CPA spec. 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 08/21/2001 10:59:07 AM To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS cc: ebXML Msg <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject: RE: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in QualityOfServiceInfo This is exactly the problem I see. How do I send to the same address but slightly vary the parameters (change SyncReply from True to False)? Chris suggested (I think) that all that was necessary was to define another DeliveryChannel. I don't understand how this solves the problem since I can't figure out how to tell the receiver which DeliveryChannel to use -- maybe I can't by design which means this solution won't work. This is too tightly coupled! Am I missing the mark? If not, then I need to go back to my original premise that SyncReply needs to be in MessageHeader. Regards, David Fischer Drummond Group. -----Original Message----- From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 10:20 PM To: Arvola Chan Cc: David Fischer; Christopher Ferris (E-mail); ebXML Messaging (E-mail); ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in QualityOfServiceInfo Arvola, It's late at night and I have just gone through 140 emails accumulated Friday and today so maybe I am getting a bit dull. Each party knows about its delivery channels and the other party's delivery channels and which one goes with each business transaction. This is the information that is in the CPA and has to be installed in each party's system. The missing element in your posting is the endpoint address, defined for each delivery channel. As long as each delivery channel has a unique endpoint address, the From MSH should have no ambiguity in where to send each message and the To MSH has no ambiguity in which delivery channel to use for a received message. Service and Action should be needed only by the To Party's MSH and only for routing to the application entry point. There may be a problem if one wants to define two delivery channels with the same endpoint address but slight variations in some parameters. I believe that we have assumed that each delivery channel has a unique endpoint address but I suspect that we don't say so. Allowing two different delivery channels to share an endpoint address would certainly require an additional piece of information that the To MSH would need to use to identify the correct receive channel for an incoming message. I suggest that V1.1 state that every delivery channel SHALL have a unique endpoint address (if V1.0 doesn't say so). For V2.0, we could consider permitting different delivery channls to share the same endpoint address and adding whatever disambiguator is required to make this work. Regards, Marty 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 ******************************************************************************** ***** Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com> on 08/20/2001 09:43:52 PM To: David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com>, "Christopher Ferris (E-mail)" <chris.ferris@east.sun.com> cc: "ebXML Messaging (E-mail)" <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>, ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in QualityOfServiceInfo David and Chris: I have a similar issue. It is not clear to me that a sender MSH can uniquely determine a delivery channel to be used to send to a receiver without knowing the collaboration role played by the receiver. The structure of the CPP/A elements is such that a Party may play multiple collaboration roles. For each such role, there can be one or more prioritized service bindings. Each service binding has a service element that essentially identifies the service provided by the party in question. Each service binding specifies a default delivery channel, along with zero or more override elements. Each override element pertains to a particular action and specifies the delivery channel for that action. If the sender knows the role played by the receiver, then it is straightforward to determine the delivery channel that should be used in order to send the message to the receiver. However, there is no role element in the message header. If the Message Service Interface is defined in such a way that the burden of determining the delivery channel falls on the MSH, then I am not sure if the MSH has sufficient information to determine the delivery channel. The problem I see is that the service name associated with a service binding is not necessarily unique. Is it possible to have multiple roles played by the same receiver with service bindings that share the same service name? If so, it is not clear to me which corresponding delivery channel should be used. For this discussion, let's assume that none of the service bindings in the CPA have override elements. Thus, it is not possible to use the Action element in the message header to determine the delivery channel. Regards, -Arvola -----Original Message----- From: David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com> To: Christopher Ferris (E-mail) <chris.ferris@east.sun.com> Cc: ebXML Messaging (E-mail) <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org> Date: Monday, August 20, 2001 5:33 PM Subject: RE: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in QualityOfServiceInfo Maybe I acceded to quickly? I am trying to understand how to use another delivery channel to support SyncReply. I see CPAid in the MessageHeader so the receiving end knows which CPA to use. I guess the DeliveryChannel is chosen based upon which transport is involved. What if there are two DeliveryChannels with the same transport. One HTTP w/ SyncReply=True and one HTTP w/ SyncReply=False, how does the receiver know which one to use? The CPAid would be the same. Do we need to append the DeliveryChannel ID on the end? <eb:CPAid>CompanyA-003</eb:CPAid> Where CPAid is "CompanyA" and the DeliveryChannel ID is "003"? I'm not sure how the sender tells the receiver which DeliveryChannel to use. Please forgive my ignorance but, how does this work? David Fischer Drummond Group. -----Original Message----- From: David Fischer [mailto:david@drummondgroup.com] Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 10:37 AM To: Arvola Chan Cc: ebXML Messaging (E-mail) Subject: RE: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in QualityOfServiceInfo Arvola, I agree with you but I don't think this is a significant enough Requirement to fight for. I will accede to the majority as long as it seems like a workable solution. My personal opinion is that everything in the Via (CPA message related parameters) should also be represented in MessageHeader -- again I don't feel strongly enough about this to fight for it very much. Regards, David Fischer Drummond Group. -----Original Message----- From: christopher ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com] Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 6:09 AM To: Arvola Chan Cc: David Fischer; Burdett David; ebXML Messaging (E-mail); ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in QualityOfServiceInfo Arvola, It was not the intent to require use of the syncReplyMode attribute (and hence the Via). The two parties exchanging messages point-to-point are assumed to "know" by virtue of their CPA (or the virtual equivalent of one) what their syncReplyMode is. The Via element needs this because the intermediaries don't have access to this information. Cheers, Chris Arvola Chan wrote: > > David: > > I don't think using a second DeliveryChannel will work. The following is an > excerpt from the CPP/A spec: > > The ebXML Message Service's syncReply attribute is set to a value of "true" > whenever the 1190 > syncReplyMode attribute has a value other than "none". 1191 > > Even if you have a channel that calls for the use of synchronous reply mode, > the syncReply attribute still has to be set. In other words, it is still > necessary to use the Via element if the syncReply attribute is present only > there, but this constradicts the assumption that the Via element is only > used when intermediaries are involved. > > -Arvola > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Fischer" <david@drummondgroup.com> > To: "Arvola Chan" <arvola@tibco.com>; "Burdett David" > <david.burdett@commerceone.com> > Cc: "ebXML Messaging (E-mail)" <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org> > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 7:45 PM > Subject: RE: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in > QualityOfServiceInfo > > > This was my original proposal, syncReply in both. However, I was told > this > > could be accomplished using a second DeliveryChannel. While this is not > my > > first preference, it would work... <shrug> > > > > David Fischer > > Drummond Group > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Arvola Chan [mailto:arvola@tibco.com] > > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 12:24 PM > > To: Burdett David; David Fischer (E-mail) > > Cc: ebXML Messaging (E-mail) > > Subject: Re: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in > > QualityOfServiceInfo > > > > > > David: > > > > I was mostly concerned with how to obtain synchronous replies in the > single > > hop case, assuming the Via element is to be used exclusively for multi-hop > > scenarios. I didn't realize there is a need to have syncReply vary hop by > > hop. > > > > I think it is reasonable to have syncReply both in the QOS and in the Via > > elements, and to say that the information in the Via element overrides the > > information in the QOS element. I don't have any particular preference > > between the names Via versus RoutingHeader. > > > > Thanks, > > -Arvola > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Burdett, David <david.burdett@commerceone.com> > > To: David Fischer (E-mail) <david@drummondgroup.com>; 'Arvola Chan' > > <arvola@tibco.com> > > Cc: ebXML Messaging (E-mail) <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org> > > Date: Thursday, August 09, 2001 9:57 AM > > Subject: RE: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in > > QualityOfServiceInfo > > > > > > >Arvola > > > > > >I disagree. You need syncReply in the Via. The attached PDF file titled > > "Why > > >you need syncReply in the Via" contains a diagram which illustrates the > use > > >case. Where the first hop is synchronous and the second not. > > > > > >If we want Via to be used only when intermediaries are being used then > you > > >would need ackRequested held elsewhere, e.g. in the Quality of Service. > > >However since syncReply can vary from hop to hop (see previous example), > > you > > >would then need to also have it in the Via and a rule that the Via > > >over-rides the QoS. > > > > > >There is also the issue that the sender of a message may not know that it > > is > > >multiple hop as the PDF file titled "Using ebXML RM behind the firewall" > > >illustrates. In this case external communications are done synchronously, > > >but the messaging to an application within the company is done > > >asynchronously. > > > > > >I think we need to keep ackRequested and syncReply in the Via, but rename > > it > > >... to "Routing Header" perhaps, although I have no strong preference ... > > ;) > > > > > >I'd appreciate your thoughts on these use cases. > > > > > >David > > >PS Slides very similar to these two were posted ages ago and discussed in > > >Tokyo last November I think. > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Arvola Chan [mailto:arvola@tibco.com] > > >Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 6:59 PM > > >To: David Fischer; ebXML Msg > > >Subject: Re: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in > > >QualityOfServiceInfo > > > > > > > > >David: > > > > > >Sorry for the delayed response. I agree with you that the Via element > > should > > >be used exclusively for those cases where intermediaries are involved. > > >Therefore, it makes sense to move the syncReply and ackRequested > attributes > > >to be under the QualityOfServiceInfo element. > > > > > >Since there already is a deliverySemantics attribute under the > > >QualityOfServiceInfo element, and the reliableMessagingMethod attribute > can > > >vary from one hop to another, I think reliableMessagingMethod should stay > > in > > >the Via element. > > > > > >Regards, > > >-Arvola > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com> > > >To: ebXML Msg <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org> > > >Date: Monday, August 06, 2001 8:51 PM > > >Subject: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in QualityOfServiceInfo > > > > > > > > >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 subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC