[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: Receipt Messages for the demo!!
Is it a long term goal for ebXML to provide backward compatibility to existing standards such as RosettaNet? If so it may be worthwhile for ebXML to support a flexible architecture for transport level acks. Such a flexible approach could allow the transport level ack message payload to conform to an existing schema (e.g. RosettaNet ReceiptAcknowledgement). The ack payload would still be wrapped in ebXML headers. EbXML could still define default ebXML transport Ack schema for protocols that correctly leave transport issues to the transport layer. A similar argument could be made for a flexible architecture for ebXML exceptions messages. What do you think? -- Regards, Farrukh Nicholas Kassem wrote: > Sanjay/Prasad, > > I have been silent on this matter so far but it's near and dear to my > heart. The issue isn't new and came up in the early days of ebXML > TR&P. I am of the opinion (and I believe I'm in the minority) that a > clear distinction between BP and Transport functionality is important. > The notion that the folks implementing the BP and the transport > infrastructure are one and the same is a historical artifact. This is > unlikely to continue to be the situation as transport frameworks > sediment onto suitable platforms. My hope is that BP models of the > future will make a clear distinction between transport (hopefully > based on ebXML TR&P :-) functionality and the BP. Tightly coupled > implementations (as in the case of RN) tend to blur the layers. > > The issue is far less confused when Reliable Messaging is folded in. > Hopefully there is little argument about the fact the the BP should > not see any of the "signal" messages in support of RM. I think for the > purposes of the POC we could handle the ack as a message payload - but > I think we should be clear that these acks should not be characterized > as BP messages. I pushed for clarification in the ebXML specs. but so > far to no avail. > > Regards. > Nick > > At 06:30 PM 7/30/2000 -0700, Patil, Sanjay wrote: > >> >> Let me give a simple argument to make the point clear .... >> A receiving service in Rosettanet makes use of the RN Service Header >> >> of the incoming message for generating the RN Receipt >> Acknowledgement. >> ebXML TR&P just does not understand the RN Service Header, >> ruling out any real processing of the RN Ack payload in ebXML >> framework. >> >> I understand that this is a subtle issue. Although I see this >> important, >> if the group does not see any great risk of giving a misleading >> impression >> (such as ebXML service can be layered on top of RN service) >> by using Rosettanet Ack for payload, that is fine with me. >> >> But a simple solution could be to have ebXML Acks without payload or >> >> quick build simple eBXML Ack payload for demo purpose. >> >> Please see my comments below for further clarification. >> >> thanks, >> Sanjay Patil >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Work Phone: 408 350 9619 >> http://www.netfish.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@vitria.com] >> Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2000 10:38 AM >> To: Patil, Sanjay >> Cc: Ebxml-Poc (E-mail); Askary, Sid >> Subject: Re: Receipt Messages for the demo!! >> >> 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> >> [Patil, Sanjay] Let me get this clear. My understanding was, >> we are demonstrating that the >> ebXML TR&P framework can handle any payload ex. Rosetttanet POR >> defined by 3A4 or >> OAG BODs, etc. To meet this end, we can just borrow business >> documents from >> the other standards for our demo. By using the signal messages >> from a particular standard, >> we are giving an impression that ebXML services can be layered >> on top of other standard's >> service, since the signal messages are consumed by the >> particular standard's service. >> >> > >> > 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> >> [Patil, Sanjay] The DocumentReference.DocumentLabel should >> also be "Receipt Acknowledgement" instead of "Purchase Order >> Request Acknowledgement" or >> "Purchase Order Acceptance Acknowledgement" >> >> >> > >> > 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> >> [Patil, Sanjay] Agree, without the Acks there is no PIP. But >> Acks message type is not >> defined by PIP, but it is just used in a PIP. It's only the >> business document types which are >> defined by the PIP and the Ack type is defined by RNIF. Again, >> this is because Rosettanet >> PIPs are tightly coupled with the implementation framework. >> >> > >> > 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> >> [Patil, Sanjay] Acks are useful and ebXML Acks at this point >> can simply be defined by >> the header itself. At this point, even if we decide to >> demonstrate backend integration, >> I don't understand how one is going to use the the Rosettanet >> Ack payload. >> Rosettanet Ack payload is also based upon the Service Header of >> the the incoming >> Reosettanet message and ebXML TR&P won't understand that. >> >> >> > >> > 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 >>
begin:vcard n:Najmi;Farrukh tel;fax:781-442-1610 tel;work:781-442-0703 x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:www.sun.com org:Sun Microsystems;Java Software adr:;;1 Network Drive, MS BUR02-302;Burlington;MA;01803-0902;USA version:2.1 email;internet:najmi@east.sun.com fn:Farrukh S. Najmi end:vcard
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC