RE: comments from Clark and Haugen

[Larissa Leybovich <lleybovich@vitria.com>]

In the RosettaNet world all activity design patterns (except for the
QueryResponse, which was designed to be instantaneous ) have a ReceiptAck
coming back in response to the original business document.   As we discussed
in the prior emails, the ReceiptAck was designed for the following:

"Receipt-Acknowledgement: This message is a positive acknowledgement of
receipt of a Business Action message. Sent when an action message is
received by the trading partner and is found to be a structurally and
syntactically valid RosettaNet business action message. This message is sent
only if it is required by the PIP and it is almost always required."
It has proven to be a very useful business signal as opposed to the
AcceptanceAck, which has found to be non-practical and as a result was
removed from the RNIF v.2.0.   


Larissa Leybovich
Vitria Technology
Supply Chain Solutions
Irvine         949-857-4233
Cell            949-836-2545
Sunnyvale  408-212-2716

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Karsten Riemer [mailto:Karsten.Riemer@east.sun.com] 
Sent:	Tuesday, January 02, 2001 8:16 AM
To:	Karsten Riemer
Cc:	ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org; ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org
Subject:	Re: comments from Clark and Haugen

Upon closer reading of Jim's and Bob's comments, I have a request for
clarification. Jim states: 
A transaction will have zero or one responding BusinessDocument, but always
a
ReceiptAck and maybe also an AcceptanceAck

Is this really true? Must there always be a ReceiptAck? Why?
I was under the impression that a notification (which is also a business
transaction) would have no responding document and also no signals. And if a
transaction does have a responding document, then why require a ReceiptAck?

What is the RosettaNet implementation. Do they allow a transaction to not
have
any signals?

-karsten

>Hi,
>for our meeting today, here is a set of comments received from Jim Clark
and
>Bob Haugen. To view the comments, use M/S words menu option view->comments.
>I anticipate that we can agree to incorporate most of the comments and move
>on
>to submit the document to QR tomorrow as planned.
>Note that the document we will submit to QR will contain both the DTD sent
>out
>by Cory Casanave yesterday, as well as the set of interaction patterns
>contributed by Jim Clark. The version of the document I published yesterday
>had neither, only to keep the document short for transmission purposes.
>
>thanks,
>-karsten
>
>(Paul Levine will send out meeting notice, but it will be at 12 noon EST)