RE: TPA and ebXML Header question

[Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM <srh@us.ibm.com>]

It is fine if a specific business process utilizes business level acks.
A robust ms also needs ms level acks.
There is a need for both.

Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
XML Industry Enablement
IBM e-business Standards Strategy
512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074



Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com> on 10/03/2000 07:14:05 PM

To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, David RR Webber
      <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>
cc:   Zvi Bruckner <zvi.b@sapiens.com>, "ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org"
      <ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org>, "ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org"
      <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org>
Subject:  RE: TPA and ebXML Header question



Marty and David,

All of the business aspects of document processing,
including what kinds of acks are expected, are defined
by the Commercial Transaction patterns that are part
of the BP Collaboration Metamodel now (finally)
posted on the BP work page at:
http://www.ebxml.org/project_teams/business_process/wip/index.html

(They are actually pretty much the same as RosettaNet,
so the POC vendors should know how to handle them.)

-Bob Haugen

-----Original Message-----
From:     Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM [SMTP:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
Sent:     Tuesday, October 03, 2000 6:13 PM
To:  David RR Webber
Cc:  Zvi Bruckner; ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org;
ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
Subject:  Re: TPA and ebXML Header question


DW,

Isn't the confirm you are talking about part of the business process?  It
seems to me that you want the business process to say "I got it" rather
than having the messaging service say "I was able to parse it OK and passed
it on to the business process but I it isn't my job to know if the business
process actually got it or fumbled the ball."

Regards,
Marty

*************************************************************************************


Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************




David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>@compuserve.com> on 10/03/2000
06:46:02 PM

To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   Zvi Bruckner <zvi.b@sapiens.com>, ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org,
      ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
Subject:  Re: TPA and ebXML Header question



Message text written by Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
>I believe there is a strong case for an optimistic
protocol: send only "checked not ok" and let the business-level response
imply that the message was delivered to the application with no error.

Regards,
Marty<

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Marty - this will depend on the business workflow use case.  Some
will require an explicit confirm - before proceeding to the next step.

We should support both models - but default to
'delivery accepted without confirm'.

DW.