The Acknowledgment payload is a NULL payload. The Ack message
is reserved for ebXML MS in support of reliable messaging.
Sanjay,
I don't feel this area has been adequately addressed in the specs so
what
follows is just my opinion. I think there are at least the following
cases
to consider:
1) BP's modeled assuming an unreliable
a) BP's unaware of
ebXML
b) BP's aware of ebXML
2) BP's modeled assuming a reliable MS
a) BP's unaware of
ebXML
b) BP's aware of ebXML
I think almost all the cases we have seen so far fall in category 1.a.
Which means that there is no notion of MS Acks therefore all Acks are
at
the Business level. It is therefore up to the BP to define the payload
*if
any*.
My hope is that the verticals will start considering cases 1.b &
2.b and
factor that in their modelling activities.
Case 2.a is also very common but typically have no open interoperability
requirements.
Nick
At 07:41 PM 10/25/2000 -0700, Patil, Sanjay wrote:
>Stumbled upon an old issue with Acknowledgment message payload,
>which we had left unresolved in San Jose ...Please ignore this message
>if the issue has already been thought and resolved (of course, let
me know)
>
>What should be the payload of Acknowledgement message?
>What is the scope of these Ack messages?
>If the scope is limited to TRP layer only, then
>a> Should the Ack payload generated by ebXML TRP layer be based on
> ebXML Header of the original message
only?
>b> Are we going to use the Ack messages for NonRepudiation,
> in which case digest of the original
message comes in picture
>If the scope is Business Process, then
>a> Do we have any specification for processing the incoming
> payload, or it is pretty much left
to the Business Process.
> If it is up to the Business Process,
then I would consider it
> as a business document which
happens to be Ack.
>
>When I went through the payload docs for the POC, it is apparent
>that the Ack Message and the Acceptance messages have ditto
>same payload. This just emphasizes the need of clearer definition
>of the Ack message type, usage, etc. I had several Email
>communications before the last POC on this topic and had to finally
>agree with using RosettaNet Ack payload for demo purpose only.
>
>For the Tokyo POC, can we not have any payload for the Ack messages
>(which is anyway same as the Acceptance message ex. ItemCreateAck.xml
>and ItemAlign.xml have same content. Same with OrderCreateAck.xml
>and OrderAcceptance.xml) and leave it to TRP WG to decide.
>
>thanks,
>Sanjay Patil
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------------------------------
>Work Phone: 408 350 9619
>http://www.netfish.com