[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: T2 Retry with Delivery Receipt
Let's be perfectly clear on this. IBM MQSeries may be great but its design
is based on very different premises from ebXML-MS and it is much more than
an MSH-like thing. Because of the above, because it is not ebXML and
because it is proprietary middleware, mention of it has no place in the
ebXML-MS specification. I believe that the same is true of MS-MQ.
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 09/14/2001 02:44:17 PM
To: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>, Martin W
Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc: "Dan Weinreb" <dlw@exceloncorp.com>, <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: T2 Retry with Delivery Receipt
Chris,
What do you mean by unreliable? I will agree there is no unreliable IM but
there can be an IM which does not support ebXML RM (e.g. uses MQSeries
instead).
This is the whole point of the reliableMessageMethod parameter.
David Fischer
Drummond Group.
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com]
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 1:13 PM
To: Martin W Sachs
Cc: Dan Weinreb; david@drummondgroup.com; ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: T2 Retry with Delivery Receipt
Marty,
The SMTP "intermediaries" are not ebXML MSH intermediaries
and thus there is no analogy at all.
The whole point I make is that there isn't an unreliable
ebXML MSH intermediary involved when OnceAndOnlyOnce is
in play for a message.
Cheers,
Chris
Martin W Sachs wrote:
>
> Sure but it is an example of how ebxml end to end RM can work through
> unreliable IMs.
>
>
********************************************************************************
*****
>
> 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
>
********************************************************************************
*****
>
> Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com> on 09/13/2001 01:40:58 PM
>
> To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> cc: Dan Weinreb <dlw@exceloncorp.com>, david@drummondgroup.com,
> ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: T2 Retry with Delivery Receipt
>
> Marty,
>
> AN SMTP node is NOT an MSH node. It is not part of the equation.
> The MSH nodes that are communication via SMTP are the ones that
> adopt the RM protocol of retries in the absence of an Acknowledgment.
> The SMTP nodes are incidental.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
> Martin W Sachs wrote:
> >
> > Re: "I think David's position is that we can't do that, because there
> are
> > hosts/entities out there that (a) must participate as ebXML MS IM's,
> > and (b) that are unreliable. The question is whether there's a use
> > case demonstrating this."
> >
> > There is one major use case, which is SMTP. SMTP intermediate nodes
are
> > notoriously unreliable and only acknowledge to the previous node so a
> > sender has no idea whether the message got to its destination. ebXML
on
> > top of SMTP is one of the major reasons for having ebXML reliable
> messaging
> > and only end to end reliable messaging helps with SMTP. I don't know
if
> > there is a use case for ebXML unreliable intermediaries but if there
is,
> > end to end RM is the answer.
> >
> > 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
> >
>
********************************************************************************
*****
>
> >
> > Dan Weinreb <dlw@exceloncorp.com> on 09/13/2001 12:55:02 PM
> >
> > Please respond to Dan Weinreb <dlw@exceloncorp.com>
> >
> > To: chris.ferris@sun.com
> > cc: david@drummondgroup.com, ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: Re: T2 Retry with Delivery Receipt
> >
> > Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 11:48:33 -0400
> > From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
> >
> > > The only problem is that the addition of multi-hop interferes with
> > end-to-end
> > > retries (duplicates) which, as we have seen, is a fundamental
> > functional
> > > requirement under all circumstances when a Delivery Receipt is
> > requested but not
> > > received.
> >
> > You're asking for retries on top of retries. What happens when the
> > end-to-end
> > retries are exhausted and there is still no delivery receipt? Do we
> add
> > retries
> > of retries of retries? What happens when they fail? Do we add yet
> > another layer?
> >
> > What David is asking for is perfectly sensible *if* you your failure
> > model states that IM's are unreliable, e.g. that an IM might accept a
> > message, and then silently forget it. In that case, the end-to-end
> > retries exist for a specific purpose: to harden the system against the
> > possibility of flaky IM's. There would be no need to add another
> > layer unless there is some additional, distinct failure mode to be
> > taken care of.
> >
> > Why not focus on what you perceive as an omission in the spec, that
an
> > intermediary
> > has certain obligations w/r/t reliable delivery. Let's address that
by
> > adding
> > text that fully sets out what the responsibilities of an
intermediary
> > are
> > not only w/r/t RM but w/r/t routing and any other oddities of an
> > intermediaries
> > role that is clearly distinct from that of an endpoint.
> >
> > I think David's position is that we can't do that, because there are
> > hosts/entities out there that (a) must participate as ebXML MS IM's,
> > and (b) that are unreliable. The question is whether there's a use
> > case demonstrating this.
> >
> > I'd like to focus on the specific use case that you cited in the
call,
> > where
> > an MSH uses an EDI/INT gateway. Is there an ebXML MSH at the To
Party
> or
> > do they
> > simply have an EDI/INT server?
> >
> > MSHA -> IMSHGW -> EDI/INTGW -> EDI/INTB
> >
> > In this case, how does the ebXML delivery receipt get generated?
IMO,
> > the
> > EDI/INT Gateway has a responsibility to ensure that the message is
> > safely
> > delivered. How it does this is not the perview of our specification.
> > However,
> > that doesn't obviate the responsibility that the gateway
intermediary
> > node
> > assumes.
> >
> > I'd call this a protocol-translating gateway, not an ebXML MS IM at
> > all. I agree that the gateway has to make sure that the message is
> > truly delivered, and then the gateway generates the DR. It's the
> > job of the protcol-translating gateway to create the illusion that
> > the far end is really running ebXML MS.
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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