[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. 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 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. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Marty, 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