Ok, glad you agree on further thinking about the 2 level invocation. Back
to the issue:
>notify. For normal messages, Service and Action contain some useful name,
e.g Service=SupplierOrderManagement, Action=NewPurchase order. This can be
Is the problem that we do not decouple the invocation semantics from the
message type ("Normal", etc)
in the message structure?
Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
XML Industry Enablement
IBM e-business Standards Strategy
512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
, Fax: 512-838-1074
"Burdett, David" <> on 08/09/2001 01:27:06 PM
To: Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
cc: "'Arvola Chan'" <>, Catherine H
Crawford/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS,
Subject: RE: T2: Need to change Service and Action for Errors, Delivery Re
ceip ts etc.
Scott
I agree that having more than two items to identify the invocation
semantics
is a version 2 activity, but the inability of a receiving MSH to forward an
error message to the correct application without logging EVERY message its
sends whether reliable messaging is being used or not is a bug and should
be
fixed in 1.1.
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Hinkelman [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 12:05 PM
To: Burdett, David
Cc: 'Arvola Chan'; Catherine H Crawford;
Subject: Re: T2: Need to change Service and Action for Errors, Delivery
Receip ts etc.
Why have a fixed depth (2) to these invocation semantics at all? It still
seems to me that the
upper level environment that is mapping down to the Message Service
(RosettaNet,OAG,etc)
should have the flexibility to profile the invocation. Some envirnments may
need 2, some may
need 3. The Mail Room actually underlines this. In different places, a
varying number
of qualifications (country, street, apartment, ?) are need to actually
determine the correct upper
level handoff.
This is a version2 concept for discussion, but I believe it better
seperates the concerns of
the Message Service.
Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
XML Industry Enablement
IBM e-business Standards Strategy
512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
, Fax: 512-838-1074
"Burdett, David" <> on 08/09/2001 10:29:33 AM
To: "'Arvola Chan'" <>, Catherine H
Crawford/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS,
cc:
Subject: T2: Need to change Service and Action for Errors, Delivery Receip
ts etc.
Arvola
I agree that the spec is quite specific. However I think that having just
one value for Service and Action for a Delivery Receipt makes it hard a
MSH which receives a Delivery Receipt to work out which application to
notify. For normal messages, Service and Action contain some useful name,
e.g Service=SupplierOrderManagement, Action=NewPurchase order. This can be
used to route the message to the application that supports
OrderManagement.
On a Delivery Receipt, Service contains "uri:www.ebXML.org/messageService"
and Action "DeliveryReceipt" as you quote below and the MSH is given no
clue on which application to forward the message to.
This means that the MSH has to look up the original message sent to work
out where the DR was sent to.
There is an IDENTICAL problem with Error Messages as the MSH will not know
which the application to forward the message to. This time though, it is
worse as the message may not have been saved if it was sent with RM as
BestEffort. If we don't change the spec then a Sending MSH will have to
PERSIST ALL MESSAGES whether sent reliably or not so that they can work
out which applicatioon to notify if there is an error.
The better alternative I propose is to make Action hold all the
information, e.g.
Action =uri:www.ebXML.org/messageService/MessageError
Then Service could contain "BuyerOrderManagement" so that the MSH could
work out which application to notify of the error. However this requires
that you know what to put in the Service when an error or other similar
message is returned to the sender of a message. To solve this you also
need to specify the Sending "From Service" in the original message.
Thoughts?
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Arvola Chan [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 6:59 PM
To: Burdett, David; 'Dr Crawford';
Subject: Re: T2: Reliable Messaging (point-to-point)
Sorry for the delayed response. I was tied up the last couple of days
attending to some personal matters.
To answer Cait's original question about the Service and Action elements
that should be used when a message containing a DeliveryReceipt element is
to be sent not in conjunction with any business level reply, the following
excerpt from the 1.0 spec clearly states:
If there are no errors in the message received and a DeliveryReceipt is
being sent on its own, not as part 848
of message containing payload data, then the Service and Action MUST be
set as follows: 849
· the Service element MUST be set to uri:www.ebXML.org/messageService/
850
· the Action element MUST be set to DeliveryReceipt 851
Unfortunately, the above information is located in section 8.4.7.1
deliveyReceiptRequested attribute, rather than in section 8.14
DeliveryReceipt element.
I believe the spec is currently quite specific about the Service and
Action elements to use when Acknowledgement, DeliveryReceipt, Error,
StatusRequest, StatusResponse, and Ping elements are sent on their own (not
in conjunction with business payloads).
-Arvola
-----Original Message-----
From: Burdett, David <>
To: 'Dr Crawford' <>; <
>
Date: Monday, August 06, 2001 6:39 PM
Subject: RE: T2: Reliable Messaging (point-to-point)
>I think that this is a bug in the spec.
>
>To solve this problem I think we should include in every message that is
>sent, an identifier for Service that is sending it. You can then use this
>Service when returning a message if there is no business process specific
>one to use instead. You would then use the Action element to identify why
>the message is being sent.
>
>If we make this approach the rule for returning errors, for example, then
it
>fixes the problem that a MSH does not know which application it should
>notify if the original message was not persisted (which it shouldn't be
if
>it was not sent reliably).
>
>I also think we should follow the same approach for the Message Status
and
>Ping transactions for the same reasons.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>David
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dr Crawford [mailto:]
>Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 8:11 AM
>To:
>Subject: T2: Reliable Messaging (point-to-point)
>
>
>
>
>I have a comments/questions regarding POINT-TO-POINT reliable messaging
>implementation for ebXML MS 1.0.
>
>First, lets assume that Party A is sending a message reliably -- that
the
>deliverySemantics have been set to OnceAndOnlyOnce and
>deliveryReceiptRequested to Unsigned (I don't think that Signed/Unsigned
>makes a difference for the example, actually) in the QualityOfService
>element in the MessageHeader. I am sending this message w/out
>intermediaries, so I am not making use of the Via or Acknowledgment
>elements, although I am populating the TraceHeader element as
appropriate.
>
>Now, Party B receives the message. Now assume that there is NO REPLY
from
>the application. Party B is required to send an "Acknowledgement
Message"
>(section 10.3.2) which at a minimum has a MessageData element with a
>RefToMessageId of the received message. Since a deliveryReceipt is also
>requested, the MSH must also generate the DeliveryReceipt element in the
>ack message. My question concerns the service and action elements of
this
>ack. Clearly, as there is no business-level reply, the service and
action
>should not reflect any business or application level service & action.
In
>section 10.3.3, the spec says that if an Acknowledgment element is being
>sent on its own then service MUST be set to:
>uri:www.ebxml.org/messageService and action MUST be set to
Acknowledgment.
>What is the equivalent service/action for a DeliveryReceipt element being
>sent on its own?? (as set in the MessageHeader element for this ack
>message)?? Is this described in the CPP/BPSS since this is one of the
>"signals" that need to be processed by the MSH-application interface??
>
>What would happen if the deliveryReceiptRequested was false, but the
>semantics were set to OnceAndOnlyOnce?? The minimal acknowledgement
>required only a RefToMessageId within the MessageData element -- any
>guidelines as to what should be used in the Service and Action elements
in
>the MessageHeader?
>
>In general, I think that the Reliable Messaging section should be
expanded
>to include the POINT-TO-POINT option where no Via or Acknowledgment
>elements are used, but deliveryReceiptRequested attributes are turned on.
>(i.e. there is no information about whether the reply is sync or not in
the
>message header).
>
>Your guidance is greatly appreciated.
>
>Regards,
>Cait
>
>Cait Crawford
>B2B Integration
>IBM Research
>Hawthorne, NY
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
>"unsubscribe" in the body to:
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
>"unsubscribe" in the body to:
------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to:
