Dan, I think we have decided/discussed going with Ralph's T1 discussion. On your points, while I don't disagree with any of them per-se, I think many of them would be considered a layering violation if we took them up -- like making sure the message is received by the application. Isn't that BPSS's job? Maybe we need to work on the interface but certainly nothing more. We need to stick strictly to Transport. As such, I still think NRR is MSH only and BPSS is really violating our layer to deal with that. However, I am not sure they do. It looks to me like they simply have true false flags dictating functionality. Perhaps they only send a signal or set a flag for the MSH level to request/perform the NRR functionality. I guess I missed something. What is the use case for NRR outside of the MSH? Dale said:
If there is a BPSS requirement for NRR, does that mean that
the lower layers are to provide an implementation
supporting NRR? Or is it an indication that the design
of the business data structures in Requests and
Responses support NRR functionality? Or is something
else meant? CPPA has, I think, mainly been thinking
that a BPSS requirement of NRR was a request that
the underlying layers provide an implementation for
NRR (an implementation that can be a basic or
a more enriched implementation). My thoughts exactly. I couldn't agree more. Regards, David Fischer Drummond Group.
