Nick/Chris/Jacques
So, do
we all agree with no payload for Ack messages.
The
Business Processes we are using for the POC
are
not utilizing different payloads for Ack and Reply
messages anyway. Reliable Messaging also
seems
to work better with no payload for Ack messages
per
Jacques's Email.
Please
comment/decide.
thanks,
Sanjay
Patil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work Phone: 408 350 9619
http://www.netfish.com
Nick/All,
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