RE: [ebxml-msg] Question about OPTIONAL

[David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com>]

No, I am only saying that IMO an unrecognized AckRequested is not a reason to
stop a message.  This is the expected behavior if mustUnderstand="0".

We should send back an Error/Warning/NotSupported if not understood.  This is
going to happen every time a v1.1 system sends an AckRequested to a v1.0 system.
There is nothing wrong with the message itself.

I see that Arvola went through the schema and added mustUnderstand to
everything.  Why?  Did we vote on this?  This is not how SOAP works.  The
mustUnderstand attribute is optional and default "0".  Why are we now requiring
it?  If we say some options are optional then let's leave them optional.  Some
elements, like MessageOrder have to be mustUnderstand="1" but not everything.

Why does everything have to go in the CPA?  Please leave AckRequested out of the
CPA.  Putting it in the CPA make things more complicated.

BTW, why are we adding MSHsignals to syncReplyMode?  It doesn't need to be
there.  This again makes things more complicated.  MessageHeader syncReply
should be default "true".  In HTTP this means all MSHsignals come back sync.  In
SMTP we ignore the syncReply flag.  The only time the syncReply flag would ever
be used would be to downgrade from sync to async (not very often).

Regards,

David Fischer.

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 9:35 PM
To: David Fischer
Cc: Christopher Ferris; Dan Weinreb; arvola@tibco.com;
ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Question about OPTIONAL



There is nothing explicit in the CPA about ability to return an ACK.  The
ebXML TP team assumed that there is nothing optional about returning an ACK
and therefore nothing has to be said about it in the CPA.  This statement
is true for both BestEffort and OnceAndOnlyOnce semantics.  If the MSG team
is proposing to make an ACK optional, I guess the CPA will have to be
extended for that.

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 11/09/2001 10:16:13 AM

To:    Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>, Martin W
       Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc:    Dan Weinreb <dlw@exceloncorp.com>, arvola@tibco.com,
       ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:    RE: [ebxml-msg] Question about OPTIONAL



Is the ability to return an Ack in the CPA?

Internet philosophy is to be as stringent as possible when sending and as
forgiving as possible when receiving.

David.

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com]
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 8:53 AM
To: Martin W Sachs
Cc: David Fischer; Dan Weinreb; arvola@tibco.com;
ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] Question about OPTIONAL


+1

Martin W Sachs wrote:

> Yes, this is the real world and businesses that don't follow the spec are
> creating a serious interoperability exposure for themselves.
Nonetheless,
> if a message violates the intent of the creaters of the CPA (or
equivalent)
> one or the other has made a serious error and processing of the message
> should not continue.
>
> 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 11/08/2001 10:19:07 PM
>
> To:    Dan Weinreb <dlw@exceloncorp.com>, arvola@tibco.com
> cc:    Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject:    RE: [ebxml-msg] Question about OPTIONAL
>
>
>
> I find myself outnumbered so I will acquiesce -- with one final comment.
>
> Businesses in the real world don't like strict rules.  I think this will
> fail,
> or more likely implementors will not follow the spec.
>
>   - David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Weinreb [mailto:dlw@exceloncorp.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 9:07 PM
> To: arvola@tibco.com
> Cc: mwsachs@us.ibm.com; david@drummondgroup.com;
> ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] Question about OPTIONAL
>
>
>    Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 11:07:47 -0800
>    From: Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com>
>
>    I vote for option 1: Stop processing and send back an Error --
>    NotSupported/Error.
>
> I agree, and with the rest of what you said.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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>