RE: Some Issues with the Reliable Messaging Specification in Vers ion1.0 of ebMS

David,

Please understand that the intent is not to create manual database entries.
Creating manual database entries is what happens without a CPA.
With a CPA in the  picture, each enterprise createsonly  its own CPP;  CPA
composition and installation tools will do the rest.

Yes, there are cases where it's mostly defaults and the message of an
initial contact can fill in the missing information but, as I mentioned in
my previous posting, I believe that those case work mostly in homogeneous
communities around individual marketplace intermediaries.

As you probably know, Web Services is starting in the same conceptual
direction as ebXML.  Each provider has its own WSDL description and
automated tools should be able to take care of the rest of the setup
process.

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 Fischer" <> on 07/17/2001 10:26:15 PM

To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "Burdett, David"
      <>
cc:   "Arvola Chan" <>, <>
Subject:  RE: Some Issues with the Reliable Messaging Specification in Vers
      ion 1.0 of ebMS

No, you really don't need a CPA.  While I can't image a system without some
sort
of TP database, there can easily be defaults which allow "bootstrap"
situations.
EDI does much the same thing with Open EDI -- Automatic Trading Partner
Entry.
When you receive a message which does not match any entry in the database,
automatically create one with the transport values set to the incoming
message
values and anything which can be gleaned from the MessageHeader with all
other
values set to defaults.  This is the only way large scale communications in
a
world-wide economy is going to work.  It is simply not feasible to create
manual
database entries for hundreds of thousands of potential customers (like the
case
of Sears or L.L.Bean).  This will be a must for small quantity/value, large
volume organizations.

In large value propositions, you will probably want a more structured
approach.
This is where CPA/CPP will excel.

Regards,

David Fischer
Drummond Group.

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 8:27 AM
To: Burdett, David
Cc: Arvola Chan; 
Subject: RE: Some Issues with the Reliable Messaging Specification in
Vers ion 1.0 of ebMS

David,

But if the CPA is not used, the two parties have to first get on the phone
to negotiate what they have to agree on to be able to send that message
without a CPA, and then they both have put that information into their
systems and get it consistent and correct.  There's no free lunch. If the
negotiable information is simple, the CPA will also be simple.  In some
cases a third party may be able to dictate all of the variables. The RNIF
seems to be one such case and I assume that CommerceOne is another.
Relying on such third parties may only serve to divide the world into
islands that can't easily interoperate.

I have been discussing this with someone who is trying to implement a
message service to work either way. That's not easy. In order for the
message service spec to cover both cases, some of its statements are so
broad or vague that they don't give sufficient guidance to the implementer.
The CPPA team has an open work item to write an appendix for its spec
showing how the elements in the message header are to be used with the CPA.
However, that information really should be in the message service spec.

Yes, the spec needs to be clarified.  Clarification is needed not just to
make it clear that the CPA is optional.  All of the ambiguities resulting
from the CPA needing to be optional have to be located and clarified in the
form "this is what you do if you have a CPA and this is what you do if you
don't have a CPA."

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
********************************************************************************

*****

"Burdett, David" <> on 07/17/2001 01:24:00 AM

To:   Arvola Chan <>, 
cc:
Subject:  RE: Some Issues with the Reliable Messaging Specification in Vers
      ion 1.0 of ebMS

Arvola

You  have spotted one of the inconsistencies that, in my opinion, needs to
be fixed.  It arose because there were two different views on the
relationship between the  CPA spec and the ebMS spec. This really boiled
down to whether the CPA was  always required or optional. I will say now
that I was always firmly in the  latter camp and think that the CPA should
be optional. The main reason for this  was that if the CPA is required,
then you cannot just send a message to someone,  you have to negotiate the
CPA first and how you do this has not been  specified.

You  are also right that there are issues around using the reliable
messaging spec  over multiple hops which need to be resolved.

However the spec does need to be clarified in my  opinion to make it clear
the the CPA is optional. Removal of this inconistency  (and a few others)
is one of the things that I will suggest at the ebMS meeting  tomorrow and
Wednesday.

Thanks  for your comments.

David
PS  Most specifications seem to go through some type of revision after they
are  published ... ;)
-----Original Message-----
From: Arvola Chan  [mailto:]
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 10:43  AM
To: 
Subject: Some Issues  with the Reliable Messaging Specification in Version
1.0 of  ebMS

Section 10.2 in the ebMS spec describes the  reliable messaging parameters:
deliverySemantics, mshTimeAccuracy, TimeToLive, reliableMessagingMethod,
ackRequested, retries, retryInterval,  persistDuration. Only
deliverySemantics,  TimeToLive, reliableMessagingMethod, ackRequested can
be found in Appendix A (ebXML SOAP Extension Elements  Schema); retries,
retryInterval, and  persistDuration can only be found in Appendix D  of the
ebCPP spec.

I find the statement on line 1695 "This parameter information can be
specified in the CPA or  in the MessageHeader (section 8.4.2)."  imprecise
in the following sense:

   mshTimeAccuracy is neither in the MessageHeader  nor in the CPA.
   TimeToLive is not mentioned anywhere in the CPA.  It is not clear how
   the sending MSH should pick a value for this  parameter.
   The sub-sections describing retries,  retryInterval, and persistDuration
   do not clearly indicate that these  parameters are to be obtained from
   the CPA. Furthermore, their spellings do  not match those in the CPA
   (case difference). It will be helpful to specify  how elements in the
   MessageHeader can be used to look up these values from  the CPA. The
   CPAId alone is not sufficient. The Service and Action elements  will
   also have to be used to locate the relevant DocExchange, ebXMLBinding,
   and ReliableMessaging elements from the CPA.

It is not clear if the current Reliable Messaging  specification works over
multiple hops. Line 1774 prescribes that a  TraceHeader be created in
accordance with Section 8.5.2. The latter section  however does not say
anything about how to determine the next intermediary, in  those cases
where one or more intermediaries are to be involved. The  descriptions on
lines 1825 and 1829 on how to populate the From and To element  in the
Acknowledgement Message also do not clearly explain the circumstances
under which sub-elements under the last TraceHeader in the incoming message
are to be used.

I also find the following issues with  Section 10.3.2 on Receiving Message
Behavior:

   Line 1783 uses the URI
   http://www.ebxml.org/namespaces/messageService/MessageAcknowledgement.
   This is not consistent with the URI specified on line 1823:
   uri:www.ebxml.org/messageService.
   Steps 2.d)i) on line 1800 and 2.d)ii) on line  1802 are confusing. The
   phrase "and resend it" on line 1800 should be struck  out. Otherwise,
   the message would be resent twice.
   Step 2.c) omits the crucial action of passing on  the message which has
   been found not to be a duplicate to the  application.
   Step 2.d)iii) is incomplete. The action to be  taken when syncReply is
   set to True and the CPA indicates no application  response is included
   is left unspecified. I believe in this case an  Acknowledgement Message
   should be generated and returned  synchronously.

Under Section 10.3.5 Duplicate Message Handling,  I find the description of
an "identical message" puzzling.  Why is it  possible for a duplicate
"identical" message to have an additional  TraceHeader? Is the sending MSH
required to append another TraceHeader when it  resends a message because
an Acknowledgement Message has not been received in  time? Or is it
required to update the Timestamp in the TraceHeader  to reflect the time of
retransmission?

Thanks,
-Arvola

Arvola Chan ()
TIBCO Software (on loan to  RosettaNet)
+1-650-846-5046 (US-Pacific)

------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: