Re: Receipt Messages for the demo!!

[Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@vitria.com>]

Please see my comments below in <PY></PY>

Regards, Prasad

"Patil, Sanjay" wrote:

> The packaging section of POC proposal document treats
> the acknowledgement payload as business document instead of treating it
> as a protocol signal.
<PY>Yes. That is by design. All RosettaNet entities
are payload as far as ebXML is concerned. Without the Acks it won't be
a RosettaNet PIP.</PY>
> ex. The DocumentLabel field in the ebXML header for
> Request
> Acknowledgement has the value of "Purchase Order Request Acknowledgement".
> There is no such document type defined by Rosenttanet.
> Rosettanet does not create  custom acknowledgement messages
> based on the received message.
<PY>This is not a custom acknowledgment. The label
is just a textual description of what is in the ebXML payload. However
the TAPId.Action field should have the correct value from PIP3A4, which
is simply "Receipt Acknowledgement".</PY>
> My point is, we are creating confusing scenario by
> mixing the
> Rosettanet business documents (defined by PIPs) and signal
> messages (defined by and scope limited to RNIF).
<PY> I don't understand distinction you are trying
to make. Both business documents and Acks *are* defined by RosetaNet and
are part of the PIP (PIP3A4 in this case). Again without the Acks there
is no PIP.</PY>
> Instead we can live with just ebXMLHeader and no
> payload for
> acknowledgement messages. This will at least keep the matters clean.
<PY>If you don't need or  handle the Acks,
you can simply choose to throw away the payload for the acks. Others need
it.</PY>

Just my thoughts.

thanks,
Sanjay Patil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Work Phone: 408 350 9619
http://www.netfish.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@vitria.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2000 7:13 PM
To: Patil, Sanjay
Cc: Ebxml-Poc (E-mail); Askary, Sid
Subject: Re: Receipt Messages for the demo!!

Sanjay,

This was already discussed. We said, the RN acks would simply be payload as
far
as ebXML is concerned. The  Packaging section of the POC proposal document
also
shows <RN-Action-Message> or <RN-Signal-Message> in the payload. There are
no
ebXML level acks.

Regards, Prasad

"Patil, Sanjay" wrote:

> This is about "Receipt Acknowledgement" messages for the demo.
> Are we planning to use any payload for these messages? Since these
> messages are consumed by the service and not passed to the backend,
> we need to have ebXML specific payload, if any.
>
> I am not sure if TR&P has identified different signal message types
> as acknowledgement, exception and defined types for them.
>
> Of course, we can use RN payload for the demo, but that demonstrates
> no ebXML feature, as the ebXML service is not going to process the receipt
> payload in the receipt messages.
> Instead, maybe we can just use the ebXML header's DocumentLabel field
> to identify the "Receipt Acknowledgement" and not have any payload.
>
> Please ignore this message if this topic has already been discussed and
> decision has been made (I would still need to know the decision though).
>
> thanks,
> Sanjay Patil
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------
> Work Phone: 408 350 9619
> http://www.netfish.com