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] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] some issues affecting header design


I am not sure I understand your last comments below.  In WS-R, correlation 
of the response using the "layer below" is unnecessary[1] in general. 
While that may be the most obvious way to do some correlations, RM-Reply 
information MUST be correlated with the original message using the 
RefToMessageId mechanism because multiple RM-Replies may always be grouped 

It is true, the business payload might be correlated using the underlying 
protocol.  This results in a bizarre architectural layering: SOAP 
extensions supporting the "infrastructure and the underlying protocol 
supporting the "application".  It is also unspecified in the WS-Reliability 
specification.  Other mechanisms (such as identifying the relevant request 
in the first RM-Reply) are possible through out-of-band agreement.

In short, "supported by the layer below" does not immediately imply 
"necessary".  Could you please explain your thinking more completely?


[1] ... as in REQUIRED in the RFC 2119 sense

On 20-Sep-04 11:58, Jacques Durand wrote:

>     5. Message identity:
>     do we need an identity in addition to RM identity. That is still
>     unclear.
>     Implementation aspects (which MSH+RMP architectures will/not handle
>     a single indentity?) need be considered.
>     [JWT] Although multiple identities(MessageIds) in the Message would
>     seem redundant and confusing, it might be necessary to correlate
>     messages within an MEP at the MSH level. However, you are correct,
>     this is still unclear, and arguments can be made for and against
>     this. We definitely need to discuss this further.
>     [Jacques Durand] I see one case where the MSH needs to correlate
>     Response wirth Request . In case this is implemented with SOAP
>     request-response MEP, we can assume the correlation is supported by
>     the layer below. But depending on what kind of duplicate scenarios
>     we expect, and whether we still want this correlation even for
>     asynchronous ebMS Request-response MEPs, we may need a distinct ebMS
>     ID. It also depends on the role we expect from RefToMessageId.
>     Jacques

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