RE: T2 Clarify TimeToLive

["Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>]

>>>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>