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-msg] Proposed CPP/A schema changes to deal with ebMS permessage parameters


<bp>Comments in-line...</bp>
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: Arvola Chan [mailto:arvola@tibco.com]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 2:58 PM
To: PEDRETTIBRUCE (HP-NewJerseyex2)
Cc: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org; ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] Proposed CPP/A schema changes to deal with ebMS p ermessage parameters

Bruce:
 
Please see my embedded comments.
 
Regards,
-Arvola
-----Original Message-----
From: PEDRETTI,BRUCE (HP-NewJersey,ex2) <bruce_pedretti@hp.com>
To: 'Arvola Chan' <arvola@tibco.com>
Cc: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Monday, November 26, 2001 10:35 AM
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Proposed CPP/A schema changes to deal with ebMS p ermessage parameters

Arvola,
 
Thanks for taking the initiative to present these ideas to the cpa team.  Comments:
 
1) Personally speaking, I had envisioned an attribute for DuplicateElimination that had the enumerated values: true, false, perMessage.  For example, <DuplicateElimination inForce="true"/> or <DuplicateElimination inForce="perMessage"/>.
 
<ac>
Even when the two parties agree that duplicate elimination is to be specified per message, the sending MSH may still want to look to the CPA for guidance on how this attribute should be set. That is, the application may explicitly specify a value for the duplicateElimination attribute, or choose to omit it in which case the CPA should provide the default value. Therefore, just having "perMessage", "true", and "false" as the only possible values for the inForce attribute is not quite sufficient. <bp>I don't understand what you mean by "not sufficient".  What other possible values might there be?  Just to be explicit about the meaning of these values as I see them:
 
1) If "true", then both parties agree that duplicateElimination is inForce;
2) If "false", then both parties agree that duplicateElimination should not be performed. 
3) If "perMessage", then the Receiving MSH will comply with message header (if possible). 
 
Are there other arrangements?  I agree that the CPA schema should provide a default value, but that idea is not counter to an enumeration.</bp> 
</ac> 
 
 
2) The AckRequested issues could also be simplified with the same enumeration.  For example <Ack requested="true" signed="perMessage"/>.
 
<ac>
Similarly, the CPA should provide guidance to the sending MSH whether it should construct an AckRequested element, if the application chooses to omit such specification.   <bp>Similar rebuttal as above</bp> 
</ac>
 
3) Also, am I understanding correctly that you are proposing defaults for AckRequested such that: 
    <AckRequested  perMessageCharacteristics="perMessage" includeInMessageHeader="false"/>
... are these default values at odds with each other?  If AckRequested is supposed to be decided on a per message basis, mustn't the info be included in the message header -- or am I misunderstanding the includeInMessageHeader attribute?
 
<ac>
The intended meaning is that the application may specify on a per message basis, whether an AckRequested element should be constructed. However, if the application omits such a specification, the MSH should not construct an AckRequested element because includeInMessageHeader is set to false. At the same time, this default can be changed by setting includeInMessageHeader to true.   <bp>Isn't an absence of AckRequested and an AckRequested="false" semantic the same?  Seems to me that if the app says nothing about an MSH ack requested, then the MSH should not create the AckRequested element.  Under what circumstances might it need to create an AckRequested="false"?  </bp>
</ac>
-----Original Message-----
From: Arvola Chan [mailto:arvola@tibco.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 7:16 PM
To: Doug Bunting
Cc: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org; ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] Proposed CPP/A schema changes to deal with ebMS per message parameters

Doug:
 
The first point in my original message was intended to differentiate message properties that originate from BPSS from those that are specific to the messaging specification. The DeliveryChannel element originally contains a Characteristics element that carries BPSS related parameters. I am recommending that Characteristics be renamed BusinessProcessCharacteristics before we add the new MessagingCharacteristics element.
 
Here is another suggested set of schema changes to address your desire to allow
 
 "acknowledgments are required for this delivery channel and the message will indicate whether signing is required" or "any requested acknowledgement must be signed".
 
 <element name="MessagingCharacteristics">
  <complexType>
   <sequence>
    <element ref="tns:AckRequested"/>
    <element ref="tns:AckSignatureRequested"/>
    <element ref="tns:DuplicateElimination"/>
   </sequence>
  </complexType>
 </element>
 <element name="AckRequested">
  <complexType>
   <attribute name="perMessageCharacteristics" type="tns:perMessageCharacteristics.type" default="perMessage"/>
   <attribute name="includeInMessageHeader" type="boolean" default="false"/>
   <attribute name="actor" type="tns:actor.type" default="toPartyMSH"/>
  </complexType>
 </element>
 <element name="AckSignatureRequested">
  <complexType>
   <attribute name="perMessageCharacteristics" type="tns:perMessageCharacteristics.type" default="perMessage"/>
   <attribute name="flag" type="boolean" default="false"/>
  </complexType>
 </element>
 <element name="DuplicateElimination">
  <complexType>
   <attribute name="perMessageCharacteristics" type="tns:perMessageCharacteristics.type" default="perMessage"/>
   <attribute name="flag" type="boolean" default="false"/>
  </complexType>
 </element>
 <simpleType name="perMessageCharacteristics.type">
  <restriction base="NMTOKEN">
   <enumeration value="fixed"/>
   <enumeration value="perMessage"/>
  </restriction>
 </simpleType>
 <simpleType name="actor.type">
  <restriction base="NMTOKEN">
   <enumeration value="nextMSH"/>
   <enumeration value="toPartyMSH"/>
  </restriction>
 </simpleType>
 
Regards,
-Arvola
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Bunting <dougb62@yahoo.com>
To: Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com>
Date: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] Proposed CPP/A schema changes to deal with ebMS per message parameters

Arvola,
 
I'm not on the CPPA list and I'm unsure about the history here.  Feel free to forward your answers as appropriate.
 
What will the effect of the first point be?  More particularly, what does this have to do with the goals you've listed above?
 
The line "<attribute name="actor" type="tns:actor.type"/ default="toPartyMSH">" needs the slash moved to the end.
 
I like what's been described as two separate Boolean values for AckRequested in the CPA -- one that controls whether acknowledgements are supported at all and another that controls whether any supported acknowledgments may be signed.  This proposal seems to eliminate that separation.  A CPA will not be able to say "acknowledgments are required for this delivery channel and the message will indicate whether signing is required" or "any requested acknowledgement must be signed".
 
thanx,
    doug
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, 19 November 2001 15:12
Subject: [ebxml-msg] Proposed CPP/A schema changes to deal with ebMS per message parameters

At last week's ebxml-msg TC F2F meeting, it was agreed that the duplicateElimination attribute (under QualityOfServiceInfo) and the AckRequested element (under soap:Header)will in principle be treated as parameters that are adjustible on a message by message basis. Trading partners may specify in the CPA that they have agreed that these parameters are variable per message, or that these parameters are to be fixed at certain values, for a given delivery channel.
 
Accordingly, I am proposing the following changes/additions to the CPP/A schema:
 
- Rename the existing Characteristics element under DeliveryChannel as BusinessProcessCharacteristics.
 
- Add a MessagingCharacteristics element under DeliveryChannel.
 
- Add AckRequested and DuplicateElimination elements under the MessagingCharacteristics element, as follows:
 
 <element name="MessagingCharacteristics">
  <complexType>
   <sequence>
    <element ref="tns:AckRequested"/>
    <element ref="tns:DuplicateElimination"/>
   </sequence>
  </complexType>
 </element>
 <element name="AckRequested">
  <complexType>
   <attribute name="perMessageCharacteristics" type="tns:perMessageCharacteristics.type" default="perMessage"/>
   <attribute name="includeInMessageHeader" type="boolean" default="false"/>
   <attribute name="actor" type="tns:actor.type"/ default="toPartyMSH">
   <attribute name="signed" type="boolean" default="false"/>
  </complexType>
 </element>
 <element name="DuplicateElimination">
  <complexType>
   <attribute name="perMessageCharacteristics" type="tns:perMessageCharacteristics.type" default="perMessage"/>
   <attribute name="value" type="boolean" default="false"/>
  </complexType>
 </element>
 <simpleType name="perMessageCharacteristics.type">
  <restriction base="NMTOKEN">
   <enumeration value="fixed"/>
   <enumeration value="perMessage"/>
  </restriction>
 </simpleType>
 <simpleType name="actor.type">
  <restriction base="NMTOKEN">
   <enumeration value="nextMSH"/>
   <enumeration value="toPartyMSH"/>
  </restriction>
 </simpleType>
 
- If the perMessageCharacteristics attribute (under AckRequested and/or DuplicateElimination) is 'perMessage', then both parties have agreed that AckRequested and/or DuplicateElimination can be varied per message. Furthermore, the sender would by default make use of attributes under the AckRequested and DuplicateElimination elements within the CPA to populate the AckRequested element and duplicateElimination attribute in the ebXML message. For example, if the includeInMessageHeader attribute under AckRequested is true, then an AckRequested element will be constructed with its actor and signed attributes populated accordingly in the ebXML message. Of course, the sender is free to populate the AckRequested element in the ebXML message differently, based on other criteria (if the CPA stipulates that this is to be treated as perMessage).
 
- Conversely, if the perMessageCharacteristics attribute is 'fixed', then both parties have agreed that AckRequested and/or DuplicateElimination) must always be set to the same values as indicated in the CPA under the AckRequested and DuplicateElimination elements for the corresponding DeliveryChannel. In this case, the sender is required to make use of attributes under the AckRequested and DuplicateElimination elements within the CPA to populate the AckRequested element and duplicateElimination attribute in the ebXML message. For example, if the value attribute under DuplicateElimination is true, then the duplicateElimination attribute under QualityOfServiceInfo will be set to true. Any deviation from the agreed upon fixed values would cause the receiver MSH to return an error.
 
Please let me know if you see a problem in the suggested schema change, or if I have mis-represented the decision reached last Thursday.
 
Thanks,
-Arvola
 


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC