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: [ebxml-cppa] RE: [ebxml-msg] Comments on ebMS_v1.04c



How could reliable messaging work without duplicate elimination?
Transport-level retries is what leads to duplicates.  Are you suggesting
that the application worry about duplicates?

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 10/15/2001 04:34:48 PM

To:    Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com>, ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
cc:    ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:    RE: [ebxml-cppa] RE: [ebxml-msg] Comments on ebMS_v1.04c



Reliable Messaging has to do with retries/acks, not with duplicate
elimination.
RM could actually work w/o duplicate elimination -- but who would want to
do
this?

Regards,

David Fischer
Drummond Group.

-----Original Message-----
From: Arvola Chan [mailto:arvola@tibco.com]
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 10:44 AM
To: David Fischer; ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa] RE: [ebxml-msg] Comments on ebMS_v1.04c


David:

>On MessageOrder, we discussed this and we decided that only
>duplicateElimination was required for messageOrderSemantics
>to be Guaranteed.  You are saying Acks are required too?

At the last face to face meeting, we talked about the possibility
of decoupling the duplicateElimination, ackRequested,
and DRRequested parameters. See David Burdett's summary in

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-msg/200110/msg00018.html

In order to guarantee that messages are delivered to the application
in sequence number order without gaps, both the sender and the
receiver need to exhibit reliable messaging behavior, i.e., sender must
retry (if necessary) and receiver must ack and eliminate duplicates.

Under the QualityOfServiceInfo element, I would prefer to see the
boolean attribute duplicateElimination renamed as reliableMessaging.

Regards,
-Arvola

-----Original Message-----
From: David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com>
To: Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com>; ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
<ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
Cc: ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org <ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Sunday, October 14, 2001 8:46 PM
Subject: [ebxml-cppa] RE: [ebxml-msg] Comments on ebMS_v1.04c


Arvola, Thanks for the comments.  I am working through them and I will post
a
revision based on your comments.  One thing though, many of your comments
have
to do with the Reliable Messaging section and Multi-hop.  We tried to keep
the
RM section as single-hop only although we felt that the SOAP Actor
discussion
had to be included.  Multi-Hop RM goes in the Multi-hop section and I will
try
to address your comments there.  I don't think we have the new Actor right
yet -- probably needs to be an ebXML Actor instead of a SOAP Actor.  I
created
it in the Schema this way but not in the text.  You also asked whether two
Acknowledgments should be REQUIRED if the Sender is aware of an
Intermediary.
No, we discussed this and the Sender may only want the end-to-end
Acknowledgement.

On the Signature Transforms, we know there is a problem and we need to
change so
that we do Includes rather than Excludes.  I'm just not sure how to do that
yet.
Ideas?

On two sets of retries, yes, this became a problem when we removed CPAId
from
Via.  I asked Dale about this in the CPPA Con Call.  I don't yet know how
to
fix
this.  Perhaps we can leave this as an implementation detail (global
retries/retryinterval to the first IM).

On MessageOrder, we discussed this and we decided that only
duplicateElimination
was required for messageOrderSemantics to be Guaranteed.  You are saying
Acks
are required too?

Thanks again,

David Fischer
Drummond Group.

-----Original Message-----
From: Arvola Chan [mailto:arvola@tibco.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 5:54 PM
To: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ebxml-msg] Comments on ebMS_v1.04c


David:

Please see the attached Word document (View Comments) for the contexts for
these comments.

Regards,
-Arvola


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

----


Page: 2
Fulfills

Page: 2
Pete Wenzel (RosettaNet/SeeBeyond) is missing from this list. Actually,
quite a few names found on http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/
are missing from this list.

Page: 2
E2Open

Page: 7
This section needs to be updated to reflect more closely the current round
of modularization changes. Also, the use of punctuation after each bulleted
item seems inconsistent.

Page: 7
Invalid reference

Page: 7
Invalid reference

Page: 7
Invalid reference

Page: 7
There is a section 11 with the title Multi-Hop Module. Appendix C is
currently titled Supported Security Services.

Page: 17
Chris Ferris has suggested that the namespace value should match the
schemaLocation value. The examples need to be updated accordingly if we
agree to adopt that convention.

Page: 23
Shouldn't the TimeToLive element be present if Reliable Messaging is in
use?

Page: 23
How can the equivalent of BestEffort be specified? In that case, the
semantics is not at-least-once.

Page: 25
I find the reorganization of the Security section rather awkward. Shouldn't
the section on Security and Management precede the sections on Signature
element and on Signature Generation. It does not make sense talk about
Signature Generation even before Persistent Digital Signature is introduced
as a countermeasure technology.

Page: 27
This is insufficient. If intermediaries can change the AckRequested and Via
elements, then these elements have to be excluded from the signature.

Page: 28
This section needs to be updated to reflect changes in the 1.1 CPP/A spec.
Currently, the CollaborationRole element contains a CertificateRef element
that is also used for security definition.

Page: 30
Should www.ebxml.org be replaced with www.oasis-open.org?

Page: 31
This should probably be replaced with an appropriate XPointer.

Page: 33
What happens when the incoming message specifies syncReply=true? Shouldn't
errors be returned synchronously in this case?

Page: 33
I suggest moving this section to the end of Part II Optional Features.
Alternatively, the introductory paragraph in this section should be updated
to indicate that optional elements from Part II can also be present.

Page: 35
Incorrect statement.

Page: 35
Should this be replaced with oasis-open.org?

Page: 36
I don't see why this is necessary. A DeliveryReceipt is generated by the To
Party MSH and should be returned at the latter's earliest convenience. It
should always be possible to piggyback the DeliveryReceipt element with the
first application level message that is in response to the message in
question and therefore be able to share the same RefToMessageId in
MessageData. If the DeliveryReceipt is sent on its own, again the
RefToMessageId in MessageData should suffice.

Page: 36
This contradicts lines 1397 and 1398.

Page: 36
Duplicate elimination may be a more meaningful phrase in this context.

Page: 37
Messages that are sent in response to messages arriving on a reliable but
synchronous delivery channel also need to be kept in persistent storage!

Page: 37
Is the presence of a Via element mandatory when there are two instances of
the AckRequested element?

Page: 37
This suggests that the From Party MSH can request the To Party MSH to
return
an end-to-end acknowledgment, thereby rendering the DeliveryReceipt element
redundant. I would recommend getting rid of the DeliveryReceipt element.

Page: 38
Should this be replaced with oasis-open.org?

Page: 38
An.

Page: 38
Included in the same message with.

Page: 38
What is this attribute?

Page: 38
Shouldn't this be the From Party?

Page: 38
Should this be "used by one Message Service Handler to indicate to another
Message Service Handler that it ?" instead?

Page: 39
Again, I question whether this is necessary. See my earlier comments
regarding the use of a RefToMessageId attribute within the DeliveryReceipt
element.

Page: 39
Is the presence of a Via element mandatory when there are two instances of
the Acknowledgment element?

Page: 39
Incorrectly cut and pasted.

Page: 39
Corresponding to the ?

Page: 39
Isn't it true that an Acknowledgment element an an AckRequested element
cannot be present in the same ebXML message if the latter is not generated
by the application layer?

Page: 40
Please note that Retries, RetryInterval, PersistDuration are only in the
CPA, not in the message header.

Page: 40
Spelling.

Page: 40
Spelling.

Page: 40
Spelling.

Page: 40
Spelling.

Page: 40
Is there such an element? There is a duplicateElimination attribute in the
QualityOfServiceInfo element.

Page: 40
See comment above.

Page: 40
Has received?

Page: 40
There are two kinds of retries: retry due to non receipt of Acknowledgement
from the nextMSH, and retry due to non receipt of Acknowledgment from the
ToPartyMSH. The CPA only deals with the latter type of retry.

Page: 40
See above comment on Retries.

Page: 41
This statement is imprecise. TimeToLive is of type dateTime whereas the
product of Retries and RetryInterval is of type duration.

Page: 41
This should be of type duration.

Page: 41
The timestamp for a reliably sent message (found in the message header),
plus its PersistDuration (found in the CPA), must be greater than its
TimeToLive (found in the message header).

Page: 41
All of the figures in this section illustrate the single-hop case. It
should
be made clear whether the discussions apply both to the single-hop and
multi-hop cases.

Page: 42
This statement is very confusing. Why should it be either or? It seems that
if the sender is aware of the use of an intermediary, then it should
specify
two AckRequested elements. The phrase "as determined by the AckRequested
parameter" is rather meaningless.

Page: 42
Are we waiting for the Ack from the nextMSH or the ToPartyMSH?

Page: 42
Again, are we talking about an Ack from the nextMSH or an Ack from the
ToPartyMSH?

Page: 42
Isn't it the case that only the ToPartyMSH is supposed to perform duplicate
elimination?

Page: 42
Intermediate MSH's should not have to do this.

Page: 42
If the CPA indicates that an application response is included, then it must
be the case that the processing of the earlier message is not yet complete.
In this case, the MSH must wait for the response to the earlier message and
then return it synchronously.

Page: 43
I still think that either all intermediaries, or none of them, should
exhibit store and forward (with retry) behavior.

Page: 43
Earlier discussions in this draft indicate that an Acknowledgment message
must contain an Acknowledgment element. See line 1443.

Page: 43
I think we should allow for the possibility of having the Acknowledgment
message returned synchronously without being piggybacked on the business
response.

Page: 43
Should this be oasis-open.org?

Page: 43
This works only for the ToPartyMSH. Need to explain how an intermediary
should populate the From andTo elements when it needs to generate an
intermediate Acknowledgment because sync reply is not in use.

Page: 44
Need to account for the fact that there are two kinds of retries and two
sets of retry parameters.

Page: 44
Strike out this phrase.

Page: 44
I suggest renaming this as "first response message"

Page: 45
First response message.

Page: 45
The From Party MSH many have no knowledge of an intermediate MSH. Why
should
it trust a Delivery Failure Notification from an untrusted intermediate
MSH?

Page: 46
Should this be oasis-open.org?

Page: 49
Should this be oasis-open.org?

Page: 49
Should this be oasis-open.org?

Page: 49
Use.

Page: 49
This is quite different from the 1.0 spec which states that the
SequenceNumber element must not be present unless deliverySemantics is
OnceAndOnlyOnce and messageOrderSemantics is Guaranteed. Message ordering
cannot be guaranteed unless messages with sequence numbers are guaranteed
not to be lost!

Page: 50
I don't think messageOrderSemantics is currently specified in the CPA. We
may have to provide feedback to the CPP/A TC.

Page: 51
Does this rule apply only to the ToPartyMSH or does it apply to the nextMSH
as well?

Page: 51
Should the AckRequested element that is addressed to the nextMSH be placed
under the Via element?

Page: 52
Should this be www.oasis-open.org?

Page: 52
Don't need to capitalize?

Page: 52
Forwarding the message to ?

Page: 52
The sending MSH may not be aware of the use intermediate MSH's and
therefore
not include a Via element. When the first MSH forwards the message to the
second MSH, it will have to construct a Via element that contains a
TraceHeaderList with Two TraceHeaders!

Page: 55
The sending MSH may not be aware if any intermediary is used in the message
path. Therefore, the decision to exclude the Via element from the signature
must not rely on knowledge of the presence or absence of intermediaries.

Page: 56
The locations of these schemas have to be updated.



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