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