RE: [ebxml-msg] issues list

[David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com>]

Title:

Please be careful Chris, we never voted on Ack/Errors.  When I look in the minutes from November 14, I find:

    14.1     Issue 73.  Alllowed Acknowledegements/Errors.  Error on ack, 
                but not ack on error?  Determined can’t ack on an ack, error on

                error, or error on an ack.  Wording already precludes asking for
                an ack on a message that contains an ack (ignored). David F.

                will revise the spec to this effect.  Line 1517 (errors are never

                sent reliably) must be fixed during this revision process.

We discussed this and at that time made a determination, but there was no vote.  We continued to discuss this later and changed our (collective) minds.  I don't see why discussions at the F2F would take precedence over email.  Email tends to be more deliberate than the rushed decisions, by fewer people, at the F2F.  I will agree that we cannot overturn a vote with an email discussion.  Did I miss a vote somewhere?

 

On the current spec, I would think we can fix obvious typos without even a revote (things like schema to scheme) -- does anyone object?  But, if we want to vote on the typos I am willing to do that too.  On the editorials, I would not have been opposed to a few but I am opposed to the volume.  However, if the editorials are more than typos then we would definitely have to revote.  On technical issues, unless it is a real error (like nonNegativeInteger instead of PositiveInteger) I would be opposed to any functional changes at this time.

 

Yes, I too wish you had gotten comments in earlier since your comments are usually good ones; but, after all, we already extended the comment period by almost two months!

 

Regards,

 

David Fischer

Drummond Group

ebXML-MS Editor.

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 1:01 PM
To: David Fischer
Cc: ebXML Msg
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] issues list


David,

The TC voted on allowing an ack on a message containing
error list[1]. You simply cannot overturn a TC vote with
an email thread that continues to discuss the issue
without formal resolution resulting in a TC vote to
overturn the previous decision.

The majority of the issues cited are typographical and/or
editorial. While I suppose that I'd be willing to overlook
the editorial changes (although I feel strongly that they
would improve the document), the typographical errors should
be addressed before we submit.

As to the techncial issues raised, regardless of when the
email was sent, they remain real issues. Disregarding them
simply because they were submitted after the supposed deadline
doesn't make them go away. I think that we have an obligation
to address them.

I am sorry that I took so long in getting my comments submitted,
but I wanted to do a thorough review and that takes time.
Since I was travelling the week of 1/7/02 I simply did not
have the necessary time to complete the review.

The point I would have regarding these issues is: had I submitted
them on or before 1/11/02, what would the TC have done with them
then? The vote was on, and there were already a number of
ballots cast against the document you submitted. The issues
would have been the same.

Cheers,

Chris

[1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-msg/200111/msg00199.html

David Fischer wrote:

> Thanks Chris,
>
> I'm sorry, I have not responded to these comments because they were
> submitted after the deadline.
>
> If you feel that some of these comments were submitted prior to the
> deadline or that some of my responses to previous comments were
> incorrect, then please bring those to the attention of the group and we
> can vote on them.  My responses are only the opinion of the editor and
> do not constitute a decision by the group.  In many cases, I have tried
> to resolve conflicting requests from numerous parties.  If you feel the
> resolution was not correct, then please bring it up.
>
> One such case, which I see from your comments, is whether to have Acks
> on Errors or Errors on Acks (but not both).  Originally, the decision
> was Errors on Acks, then you made your opinion known that you preferred
> Acks on Errors (reliably sent Errors).  As soon as I changed the spec to
> reflect your opinion, several other members spoke out against the change
> and put forward a substantial case for our original decision -- Errors
> on Acks.  Since you (nor Doug) responded, I changed back to the original
> decision.  I was originally neutral on this issue, but I think I have
> become convinced from the discussion on the list that Errors on Acks is
> correct.  At this point, it effectively takes a 2/3 vote to change
> anything, but since this issue was definitely open prior to the
> deadline, perhaps we should take it up yet again.  Please read the
> attached message.
>
> Regards,
>
> David Fischer
> Drummond Group
> ebXML-MS Editor.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 2:36 PM
> To: ebXML Msg
> Subject: [ebxml-msg] issues list
>
>
> All,
>
> As mentioned on the call, I have tweaked the W3C XML Protocol WG
> issues list for our needs, and have established as a baseline the
> issues I raised with my vote on 2.0.
>
> Attached are the XML, XSLT, DTD and HTML, all of which should be
> posted to our website. We need to be sure that the DTD retains the
> W3C IP disclaimer.
>
> Comments welcomed. I'll gladly make any necessary changes
> to the schema or styling.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
>
> FW: [ebxml-msg] Ack on Error, or Error on Ack
> From:
>
> "Cliff Collins" <collinsc@sybase.com>
> Date:
>
> Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:30:22 -0600
> To:
>
> "David Fischer" <david@drummondgroup.com>
>
>
> Below is the last message I sent on this issue. Others did a
> +1 but Chris
> never replied since he was on vacation.
>
> Cliff
>
> PS. one things I forgot to note in response to Chris'
> message was that:
>
> Some message will request acks(receipts) that will be used
> in situations
> that are not "once and only once" so there would be no
> retry. Instead, this
> would result in no error reported to the sender.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cliff Collins [mailto:collinsc@sybase.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 2:19 PM
> To: Christopher Ferris
> Cc: ebXML Msg
> Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Ack on Error, or Error on Ack
>
>
>
>>
>>I don't get error on ack at all. If I receive an
>>acknowledgment message, and for whatever reason cannot
>>process it (let's say it was mangled in transit)
>>then I'll simply resend the original message
>>until I get an ack, or until either the message's TTL
>>expires or the retries have been exhausted at which
>>time I'll notify the application that I have not
>>received an acknowledgment confirming the message's
>>receipt by the intended recipient.
>>
>
> Acks can now also be used for Non-repudiation of receipt.
> This means that if
> the ds:References are not included or it is not signed and
> the CPA says it
> was suppose to be than this is an ERROR of inconsistent.
> Waiting for the
> retry doesn't solve the error.
>
>
>
>>As for ack on error, why on earth cannot an error
>>be treated with all of the same QoS as a normal