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: [ebxml-msg] RE: Public usage scenario documents

My reply to David Webber was rejected by ebtwg@lists.ebtwg.org  with the
following error message:

     550 Mailbox unavailable: This site may not be used as a relay agent.

I don't know whether this is a temporary or "permanent" problem.  Someone
who knows where to report problems might want to forward this to the
appropriate place.



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 RR Webber -                                                                                      
                      XMLGlobal                To:       Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS                                     
                      <Gnosis_@compuser        cc:       "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>,      
                      ve.com>                   ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org, Randy Clark <Randy.Clark@bakerhughes.com>,   
                                                "'bhaugen'" <linkage@interaccess.com>, eBTWG List <ebtwg@lists.ebtwg.org>,   
                      05/28/2002 12:14          "'Duane Nickull'" <duane@xmlglobal.com>, Christopher Ferris                  
                      AM                        <chris.ferris@sun.com>                                                       
                                               Subject:  RE: Public usage scenario documents                                 

Message text written by Martin W Sachs
>     Both parties to the message exchange MUST persist enough state to
allow recovery and getting back in sync. Specific state variables must
     be prescribed.  They are at least those variables needed to restore
the state of the transaction and conversation after system recovery, such
     as the conversation ID, CPA Id, service, action, and perhaps other
parts of the message header.

     Timeouts and retries, as prescribed in the MSG spec, are not
sufficient to cover system failures since the failure could last a very
long time.


There appears to me to be no big surprise there.   I would say this was
EDI 101 - and that we hardly need things in the spec' which teach
people how to build applications systems.

People who know how to build product will include these feature sets
and augment them according to their customer base requirements.
So we do not need to teach this - and worse - it potentially forces
people to build this in - even if their use case / customer model
can use a lesser level of functionality quite happily.

We have avoided this with Registry for example.

If you are building a reliable messaging product - you are going to
have a all manner of features in it over and above - like being able
to check that the confirmation was signed by someone with
a wristwatch on their left arm, et al/

Or worse - what about hardware level verification of tamperproof
retention for authentication in a five year time frame?   At some point
you have to quit and know - this is outside our scope.

Let's not confuse functional level detail - with technical specifications.

Cheers, DW.

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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC