Re: [ebxml-msg] Semantics of AS4 Receipt

[Theo Kramer <theo@flame.co.za>]

Agreed with Dale. I kind of see the AS4 MSH as DCE (data communications equipment) transparent to associated business processes.

On 30 Jan 2012, at 11:48 PM, Moberg Dale wrote:

> I think that AS4 NRR is now roughly  the same as AS1-3 NRR. My concern was that we not proceed beyond secured, acknowledgement of receipt (and, when security features are OK, an indication that the next processing step was engaged). I am uncertain about “successful transfer” – the MSH did its step in “processing,” but whether the next processing step was successful is not assured. (For example, the payload might be placed on a queue, but whether the payload was taken off the queue is an open question as far as the signal is concerned.)
>  
> [Many requests from “end user communities” have emerged over time to add on various assurances about further processing. I don’t think we should go there with data exchange protocols. That does not prevent embedding data exchange protocols in richer coordination protocols that might add on various notification services. But I would not want to get into these additions within AS4. I think the additional protocols should be developed as applications of existing IETF protocols, maybe as an EDIINT-NG or B2B-NG interest group. I don’t think it should be an OASIS effort. Just my opinion (or using the new catch phrase), just sayin’]

-- 
Regards
Theo