OK, I added a sentance in 7.2 which points to 7.3.1.4.
David.
-----Original Message-----
From: Arvola Chan [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 7:20 PM
To: David Fischer
Cc: ebXML Msg;
Subject: [ebxml-cppa] Re: [ebxml-msg] Comments on your Comments
David:
I have no problem with stipulating that Errors are never sent
reliably. We just have to make it clear in the 1.1 spec.
The CPP/A spec should indicate that any delivery channel
designated for carrying Error messages (i.e., for the action
MessageError) must not specify the use of Reliable Messaging.
Regards,
-Arvola
-----Original Message-----
From: David Fischer <>
To: Arvola Chan <>
Cc: ebXML Msg <>
Date: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 7:19 AM
Subject: [ebxml-msg] Comments on your Comments
Arvola,
One of your comments was on the restriction about not having Acks on Errors.
We
can have Acks on Errors if we stipulate no Errors on Acks. If we want
Errors on
Acks then we must stipulate no Acks on Errors. If we have both, then we
have
the potential for endless loops.
I question the need for Errors to be sent reliably. I see some significant
benefit for having Errors returned on bad Acks.
Regards,
David Fischer
Drummond Group.
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
