[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: T2 Clarify TimeToLive
>>>While we are at it, it is not at all clear if a message that has already been persisted should be destroyed by the MSH when TTL has expired.<<< It shouldn't be destroyed based on TTL. The persistDuration should be used instead. This is the *minimum* duration that a message should retained by a MSH for reliable messaging purposes. You might argue though that if TTL is longer the persistDuration that the receiving MSH should persist it until after the TTL has passed. However I can imagine an attack whereby someone sends messages with a TTL of, say, a year hence just to clog up a MSH. Thoughts? David -----Original Message----- From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 12:17 PM To: Burdett, David Cc: 'Dan Weinreb'; arvola@tibco.com; david@drummondgroup.com; ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: T2 Clarify TimeToLive While we are at it, it is not at all clear if a message that has already been persisted should be destroyed by the MSH when TTL has expired. Once the message has been persisted (and the application notified that it is there), it is already in the application domain. Message level time-to-live functions are useful at the message layer to prevent a message from circulating endlessly without being delivered (the IP hop count is an example of this). TTL functions related to staleness of the transaction are an application matter. 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 **************************************************************************** ********* "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com> on 09/12/2001 02:51:38 PM To: "'Dan Weinreb'" <dlw@exceloncorp.com> cc: arvola@tibco.com, david@drummondgroup.com, ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: T2 Clarify TimeToLive Dan The spec already says that an error should be reported if the To MSH receives a message where Time To Live has passed. It doesn't though say that the message must be ignored. This is a small useful clarification. David -----Original Message----- From: Dan Weinreb [mailto:dlw@exceloncorp.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 10:47 PM To: Burdett, David Cc: arvola@tibco.com; david@drummondgroup.com; ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: T2 Clarify TimeToLive I don't think we should conflate TimeToLive with business-level concepts such as "This special offer is only extended for 30 days". First, you might want to receive a message about a special offer even if the offer period is over, just so that you'll know that there was such an offer. Second, you might want to send mail about a special offer that lasts for year, but have a TimeToLive much less than a year, because TimeToLive is really driven by the needs of the message protocol rather than considerations up at the business level. The spec should make clear that if a message's TimeToLive has passed, then the message is discarded and forgotten. For example, if a To Application asks the To MSH for an incoming message, the To MSH must check the TimeToLive, and if the time has passed, the To MSH must discard this message, and behave as if this message had never been present at all. TimeToLive is particularly important because it saves you from having to persistently remember the MessageID of every message you have ever received (as I have discussed in earlier mail). -- Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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