That sounds fine.
David Fischer wrote:
> This should be consistent with SyncReply.
>
> <eb:DuplicateElimination/>
>
> Its value is based upon its presence or absence, just like SyncReply works.
>
> David.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 8:34 AM
> To: David Fischer
> Cc: ebxml-msg
> Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] question about QoS
>
>
> So what you propose would look something like this?
>
> <eb:DuplicateElimination value="true|false"/>
>
> If so, no objections from me. Just to be clear,
> it still carries the same semantics we have been
> discussing... Only (needs to be) present when CPA says
> "perMessage" otherwise defaults to CPA value, correct?
> If present and in conflict with CPA, then results
> in Inconsistent error.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
> David Fischer wrote:
>
>
>>To the team,
>>
>>
>>
>>Does anyone object to renaming QOS to DuplicateElimination?
>>
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>>David Fischer
>>Drummond Group
>>ebXML-MS Editor.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Arvola Chan [mailto:]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 5:48 PM
>> To: Cliff Collins; ebxml-msg
>> Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] question about QoS
>>
>> Cliff:
>>
>>
>>
>> Please see my comments inline.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Arvola
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Cliff Collins <
>> <mailto:>>
>> To: ebxml-msg <
>> <mailto:>>
>> Date: Thursday, December 06, 2001 3:24 PM
>> Subject: [ebxml-msg] question about QoS
>>
>> I have 2 questions/comments about the recent talk regarding
>> QualifyOfService and DuplicationElimination.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. It was said that QoS with DuplicationElimination must be
>> present in every message. Does this include MSH types messages
>> where DuplicationElimination would never be true? i.e.
>> ping/ping/StatusRequest/StatusResponse/Acknowledgements must
>> also include QoS with DuplicationElimination =false.
>>
>>
>>
>> <ac>
>>
>> The QoS element with the duplicateElimination attribute set to
>> "true" needs to be included in the message header only if
>> duplicate elimination is desired. It is quite pointless to
>> include a QoS element with duplicateElimination set to "false".
>>
>> </ac>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. Since QualifyOfService only contains one attribute
>> (DuplicationElimination) why not rename the "QualifyOfService"
>> element to "DuplicationElimination"? This would also mean that
>> question #1 above wouldn't make sense. This element would only
>> appear when "DuplicationElimination" is true. This would be more
>> in line with other elements like "AckRequested" and "SyncReply".
>> IMO leaving QualifyOfService the way it is seems inconsistent
>> with the rest of the spec.
>>
>>
>>
>> <ac>
>>
>> I agree with you that it will be more consistent if we rename
>> the QoS element the DuplicateElimination element and to do away
>> with the embedded duplicateElimination attribute.
>>
>> </ac>
>>
>>
>>
>> Cliff Collins
>>
>> mailto:
>>
>> URL: http://www.skyweyr.com/cliff
>>
>> (510)922-5204
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
