RE: Receipt Messages for the demo!!

[Dick Brooks <dick@8760.com>]

I think Nick, I and several of the TR&P team have stood together in the belief that we need transport level  ACK's, which are separate and distinct from BP level ACK's. I believe the header accommodates transport ACK's through the MessageType attribute of the ebXMLHeader element. The precise definition of how one "populates" a transport level ack is not spelled out, but you can see traces of the intent to provide this functionality.

 

I can easily envision a Transport Level Ack being sent as MessageType="Acknowledgement" either synchronously or asynchronously. The ack information might include:

- FQDN of the server

- Date/Time of acknowledgement

- Status

- Transaction ID issued by server (used for future inquiries regarding this transmission can be cross referenced with MessageData/MessageID to relate transport to business document sent in the transmission.

 

The Manifest and Header elements would be populated as appropriate (from, To, etc.)

 

This acknowledgement information could be signed if required by the rules of engagement specified in the TPAId context )

 

IMHO, this transport level ack is passed within the payload container of the ebXML message. Clearly, we have more "flushing out" to do, but we are heading in the right direction.

 

FYI - I'm attending the IETF meeting this week in Pittsburgh so communications will be sparse at best, I apologize in advance for long delays in responding.

 

Dick Brooks
Group 8760
110 12th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
dick@8760.com
205-250-8053
Fax: 205-250-8057
http://www.8760.com/

InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Kassem [mailto:nick.kassem@eng.sun.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2000 10:03 PM
To: Patil, Sanjay; 'Prasad Yendluri'
Cc: Ebxml-Poc (E-mail); Askary, Sid
Subject: RE: Receipt Messages for the demo!!

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