ebxml-msg — archive

RE: FW: T2, Proposed solution for ... Re: SyncReplyandReliableMessagingMethod in QualityOfServiceInfo

From: System
To: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 19:40:00 -0000

Comments below. 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 ************************************************************************************* David Fischer <[email protected]> on 09/21/2001 12:10:59 PM To: [email protected], [email protected] cc: Subject: RE: FW: T2, Proposed solution for ... Re: SyncReply andReliableMessagingMethod in QualityOfServiceInfo Chris, Does this mean communications between two Trading Partners is ALWAYS RM or NEVER RM? We've already decided DeliveryChannel is address specific so there cannot be two DeliveryChannels between one set of addresses. MWS: There certainly be two or more delivery channels with the same endpoint address. All but one have to be associated with specific (different) business transactions. These are defined in the override element. In any case, one can always associate different endpoint addresses with delivery channels even though they go to the same physical place (different URIs with the same IP address). Does this mean the RM settings are fixed and never changing between these two Trading Partners? Doesn't sound very flexible. Some documents will be critical and thus require RM while some do not. How do we accommodate this? MWS: We don't have anything in the CPA that specifies anything per instance of a message. I don't know how that could be done. I don't think that the BPSS provides this capability either. Anything that has to be per instance of a message has to be done through information in the message header. The application has to specify this information. Chris wrote: How does this work if the sending MSH knows nothing of intermediaries? Are you suggesting that the Via element is now REQUIRED on all messages? In the case of single-hop, no retryCount is necessary. I have to agree though, how does the sender know this is single-hop? Since there is always the potential of transparent IMs, shouldn't we assume that nothing is single-hop and therefore Via is ALWAYS required for RM? On the issue of an MSH knowing it is an IM, this decision has to be made at the MSH layer since security is an MSH layer function (see figure 6-1). If you wait, the MSH will try to validate the signature (or decrypt) and fail thus sending an error message back to the From Party. Again, message packaging and security are in the MSH, not the Application*. The MSH MUST know it is an IM. Packaging and forwarding are MSH functions, not application. *A different set of criteria might apply to an intra-company mailroom situation. Regards, David Fischer Drummond Group.