Anthony: I must have missed this post earlier. If you download the Yellow Dragon Software ebXML Messaging (Free eval copy), there is a complimentry CPA and CPA guide. The CPA is heavily commented and has been a useful tool for those who want to get an implementation eye of ebXML CPA. http://www.yellowdragonsoft.com/downloads/ Everything is bundled together so you will have to download the entire ebXML MS software package to get the CPA and CPA guide. This will give you a free eval platform to test the CPA with since YDS MS uses CPA for configuration. I hope this helps. Duane Nickull -- Yellow Dragon Software - http://www.yellowdragonsoft.com Service Oriented Architecture Components - ebXML, Web Services, SOAP Project Team lead - United Nations CEFACT eBusiness Architecture +1 (604) 726-3329 *********************************** anthony.ellis@redwahoo.com wrote: > I have a question on ebXML reliable delivery. > Basically, there are a lot of parameters listed for the sender and also for > the receiver. Which values should you use to drive the reliable messaging, > those from the sender or those from the receiver? > > > > Reliable delivery at the MSH is driven (in part) by the CPA document. My > questions are related to what fields in the CPA document should be used. > > Scenario: > Company A -> Purchase Order -> Company B > Company B -> Acknowledgement -> Company A > > Some of the reliable messaging attributes are specified in > <DeliveryChannel ... > > <MessagingCharacteristics ackRequested="always" > duplicateElimination="always" ... > > > And both CompanyA and CompanyB have <DeliveryChannel> elements referenced in > action bindings. > > Do you take the <DeliveryChannel> element listed in the FromParty or the > ToParty? > I understand that they should match ( based on > ThisPartyActionBinding/OtherPartyActionBinding ) but what if they don't! > What should you do? > An ebXML MSH would need to always verify if DeliveryChannel objects have > matching reliable messaging parameters, matching security parameters, even > matching endpoint protocols. > > It seems like a lot of overhead of ensuring corresponding values are 'equal' > when in essence they should have been aggreed upon when the CPA was made. > If the CPA was constructed with only one set of reliable delivery, security, > endpoint values that was aggreed upon at creation, rather than having two > sets of values that 'should' match up, there would never have to be a check > (maybe I am dreaming). > > Any info would be appreciated > > Thanks in advance > > Anthony Ellis > Red Wahoo > ----------------------------- > Tel: +61 438 878 003 > www.redwahoo.com -- Yellow Dragon Software - http://www.yellowdragonsoft.com Service Oriented Architecture Components - ebXML, Web Services, SOAP Project Team lead - United Nations CEFACT eBusiness Architecture +1 (604) 726-3329 ***********************************
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>