ebxml-msg — archive

RE: T2 The answer isn't always "you need a CPA"

From: System
To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 14:53:00 -0000

David, A collaborative business process is not possible if the two parties don't agree on the details of the collaboration and of the message exchange. Whether they do it by phone or by sharing a CPA is immaterial. If the two parties don't agree on the meaning of each possible value of service and action, then each party still has to know its own service and action and the service and action to be used by the other party. You are avoiding the CPA and avoiding the Process Specification document. You are not eliminating the need for the two parties to know the equivalent information. 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" <[email protected]> on 09/12/2001 02:40:09 PM To: "'Dale Moberg'" <[email protected]>, Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "Ian. C. Jones (E-mail)" <[email protected]> cc: "William J. Kammerer" <[email protected]>, "ebXML Messaging (E-mail)" <[email protected]> Subject: RE: T2 The answer isn't always "you need a CPA" Dale/Marty I am not aiming to bloat the message header I am trying to fix a real problem the same one as you. For example you say below ... >>>The MSH has been architected under the assumption that it has in its possession information that enables it to do "(send or receive)transport, (un-)packaging, and (application layer) routing" for a given sender/receiver pair<<< I would assert that with the current spec, the receiving MSH often will not have the information needed as it assumes the sender of a message knows what to put in there and sometimes they won't. I don't think it is acceptable that before you send anyone a message you HAVE to pre-agree in a separate out-of-band conversation what data is to be used in the service and action for any response. I tried to explain the problem in my original email as well as include a suggested solution see ... http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-msg/200109/msg00079.html The only feedback so far is "I don't want anything else in the header" whilst the problem I raised has not been discussed. I'd really appreciate it if you would read the original email and: 1. Agree (or not) that there is a problem - and if not say why. 2. If you agree there is a problem suggest an alternative solution if you don't like the one I have proposed. I'd also like to repeat three questions from an earlier at http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-msg/200109/msg00115.html email to which no-one has yet responded ... "1. How does the recipient of a message know what to put in the Service and Action for the message they return in the absence of a CPA (Please read the Bank Payment example for more details) 2. To use RefToMessageId, the sender of a message, where a reply is expected, would have no option but to save the data from the EVERY message even though the message was sent with deliverySemantics of BestEffort. This should not be necessary. How can it be avoided? 3. If you are using PartyId, Service and Action to route a message, how do you know which MSH at the Party should receive the message when Service and Action have fixed values (as in an error message)? With the current spec, a Party could only have one MSH ... even if it were IBM." A few more detailed comments below. Regards David