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: [OASIS Issue Tracker] (EBXMLMSG-65) PMode.ID

    [ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/EBXMLMSG-65?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=54541#comment-54541 ] 

Pim van der Eijk commented on EBXMLMSG-65:

On (2),  if we do match against all PMode,  then I think it is reasonable to require at most one potential matching PMode (according to the From/To/Service .. etc values as keys) as described for PMode.ID in https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/EBXMLMSG-48.

> PMode.ID
> --------
>                 Key: EBXMLMSG-65
>                 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/EBXMLMSG-65
>             Project: OASIS ebXML Messaging Services TC
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Pim van der Eijk
> As discussed in the call,  I add a JIRA issue for PMode.ID.
> People with implementations of AS4,  please add a comment on how you implemented it and handle the three situations and if it matches the interpretation below.
> The idea is to add some clarification to the spec. 
> ___
> Reading in the history I see that on March 2011 it was made “required” in AS4:
> “ and made support "required" for PMode.ID and PMode.agreement (meaning an implementation must be able to use this Pmode value - if present - to fill-in the related message header element.)”
> So I think your interpretation is overall right:
> “My interpretation (from the spec and discussions) is that, "support by an MSH" means that the MSH can have PModes with an ID, and if a PMode has an "ID", the "support by an MSH" means that the sending MSH MUST include it with outgoing messages, and a receiving MSH MUST use it to retrieve a specific configuration. So the required support in AS4 would requires the ability to attach an identifier to a PMode.”
> Although I would reword it as:
> “…the "support by an MSH" means that the sending MSH MAY include it with outgoing messages, and a receiving MSH MUST be able to use it to retrieve a specific configuration.   “
> “2)  If a sender does not include an ID in a message,  should the receiving MSH match it against PModes that do not have an ID only,  or to all PModes (some that have, and some that do not have a PMode ID) ?   “
> I would say against all PModes available. The Receiver should just ignore the PMode.ID feature in that case. Core spec says “If the ID is specified, the AgreementRef/@pmode attribute value is also expected to be set in associated messages.” but it is just a convenience – not a strong requirement.
> 3)  If a sender includes an ID in a message, and the receiving MSH does not have a PMode with this ID,  should it return an error or should it attempt to match the message to PModes without ID (i.e. ignore the ID)
> I think it makes sense to return an error in that case, because if the PMode on Sender side has an ID, it should also have one on Receiver side. Or at least just a warning, if  matching works with a PMode without ID.
> -jacques

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

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