Re: Track 2 & 3 Ack's

[jacques durand <jacques@savvion.com>]

Hi Mark:

Mark Hale wrote:

> We've had some discussion on the POC thread concerning relaxing the Ack
> requirement.  I just spoke with Sanjay and I wanted to be sure that we have
> reached a consenus as a group.
>
> In this case, a reduction in scope is requested for Track 2 & 3.  The
> current request is to have the Ack's be TR&P leevl Acks and not business
> level Acks.  This amounts to a TR&P MessageType of "Acknowledgment" with no
> payload from the business level.

Should be fine - we  assume these Acks will not be visible in anyway at BP
level, right?
Another implication is that every TRP Message Handler involved should now expect

Acks (even if they do not implement RM yet. In which case the Ack is ignored.)

> For the sake of the demo, this is
> acceptable.  We get the Ack and still leave the door open for business level
> Acks at a later date when more of the business process models are defined.
>
> If there are no objections, let us use this and move forward.
>
>         Thanks,
>
>         Mark