RE: Trading Partner Logical Identification based on EDIFA

[David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com>]

No, you're not wrong, it needs to work with carrier pigeons and HTTP - both
of which are un-reliable.

However MQ series, is reliable, but we make no acknowledgement in the
current spec for the fact that a reliable communications protocol is being
used.

Would it work if we amended the definition of Delivery Semantics to be:
>>>
* "AtMostOnce" - reliable, at most once, delivery of a message following the
rules and procedures defined in this specification, see section xxx
* "CommunicationProtocol" -  reliable messaging achieved through the use of
the reliable messaging features of the communication protocol used to
transport the message
* "UnSpecified" - reliable delivery semantics are not specified
<<<

We should also add ...
>>>If Delivery Semantics is set to "CommunicationProtocol" and the
communication protocol being used does not support reliable messaging, then
an error should be returned to the sender of the message.

Determining whether or not a communication protocol is reliable is an
implementation/configuration decision of the recipient of the message.
<<<



-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Hughes [mailto:jfh@fs.fujitsu.com]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 10:04 AM
To: ebxml transport
Subject: Re: Trading Partner Logical Identification based on EDIFA


If, architecturally, we want to make the notion of RM tied to the variety 
of underlying transport, then let's get that agreed in the requirements 
document before we make more 'advisory comments' on the proposed RM spec. 
We'll get this issue closed faster if we address the comments to proposed 
changes in the requirements document and lock that document down.

I've taken the loose interpretation that the RM process should work with 
carrier pigeons as well as MQseries. If that's wrong, then let's discuss
it...!

Jim

At 10:15 PM 8/20/00 -0400, mwsachs@us.ibm.com wrote:
>Gordon,
>
>I also have some concerns about how the reliable messaging window (reliable
>messaging group, in the latest version of the spec) interacts with the
>transport-level ACKs and windowing and what it does to message latency.
>The reliable messaging spec will need a lot of advisory discussion.
>
>Isn't your (1) the window that already exists in TCP and in protocols like
>HDLC and the logical link control layer of the LAN protocols?  If so, the
>messaging service spec does not need to discuss it since these are below
>the bottom level of the messaging service spec.  Normative references to
>those protocols might be desirable, however.
>
>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
>***************************************************************************
**********
>
>
>
>Gordon van Huizen <gvanhuiz@progress.com> on 08/18/2000 04:33:06 PM
>
>Please respond to gvh@progress.com
>
>To:   Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@east.sun.com>
>cc:   marcb@webmethods.com, "ebXML Transport (E-mail)"
>       <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org>
>Subject:  Re: Trading Partner Logical Identification based on EDIFA
>
>
>
>Farrukh,
>
>There was a great deal of confusion about this in San Jose, and I'm not
>sure that we all came away with the same mental picture of what's being
>addressed WRT to windows.
>
>Here are the two levels of windows that I would have been comfortable
>with:
>
>1) A low-level framing mechanism for marshaling data over the wire based
>on a given transport protocol. The rationale for this mechanism is
>efficiently and reliably propagating all traffic over a given link.
>Traffic, here, means a mix of messages (for multiple logical sending and
>receiving parties and multiple conversations, with varying delivery
>guarantees, message priorities, etc.) that happen to be sent between
>service providers on two ends of a physical link. In practice this
>framing is necessary for performance and reliability over underlying
>transport protocols (certainly for TCP/IP). The key here is that the
>windowing is between service providers that own the physical link, not
>between logical parties. Few project team members were comfortable
>addressing this level of window in the spec, although it does affect
>performance, reliable messaging and the ability to have over-the-wire
>interoperability.
>
>2) An application-level message batching mechanism for application-level
>transaction management, ala JMS, where at the application level you can
>commit or roll-back a group of messages and receive notification of
>time-outs, etc. The scope of a window here is application-based. The
>group agreed that this was out of scope for the reliable messaging spec,
>indicating that the reliable messaging layer to be addressed is not an
>application-level issue.
>
>What I believe we have in the reliable messaging spec is most definitely
>not #1, and I don't believe it's #2 either. Instead I believe it's some
>middle layer that will need to be mapped in both directions.
>
>-gvh-
>
>Farrukh Najmi wrote:
> >
> > Gordon,
> >
> > I am still unclear on the second two of three suggested levels of
>windows. Can
> > someone give a reason for why we need the additional grouping of
>messages. Is it
> > not enough to group messages that are related to one conversation (ala
>JMS
> > transaction as suggested)? And why does the transport have any role to
>play in the
> > grouping of messages? Since these additional levels of "windows" add
>complexity at
> > the conceptual level I would like to understand the rationale behing
>them.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Regards,
> > Farrukh
> >
> > Gordon van Huizen wrote:
> >
> > > I know we've had a lot of discussion about this, but it seems to me
>that
> > > there are three levels of "windows" involved in the current model for
> > > ebXML messaging:
> > >
> > > - Conversation-level windows (more like transacted messages in JMS)
> > > - Reliable messaging windows (at a logical level, above transport
> > > bindings)
> > > - Windows for framing messages carried across a particular transport
> > >
> > > Is this what everyone else is picturing? If so, the Reliable Messaging
> > > window can be pretty simple, and then we have the issue of mapping
>these
> > > to the other two levels. I want to be clear on this point prior to
> > > making final comments on the reliable messaging spec.
> > >
> > > If the above separation is NOT what we're doing, the reliable message
> > > spec needs some work.
> > >
> > > -gvh-
> > >
> > > Marc Breissinger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Message Window (which I believe as been renamed in the latest
>version of
> > > > the Reliable Messaging spec) is not the same as the conversation.
>Messages
> > > > from many conversations can be within the same window.
> > > >
> > > >
>==========================================================================
> > > > Marc Breissinger                                   voice (W):
>703-460-2504
> > > > Director, Product Strategy - webMethods, Inc.      voice (C):
>703-989-7689
> > > > Email:  marcb@webmethods.com                               We're
>hiring!!!
> > > > Email2: breissim@earthlink.net              URL:
>http://www.webmethods.com
> > > >
>==========================================================================
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@east.sun.com]
> > > > > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 9:54 AM
> > > > > To: ebXML Transport (E-mail)
> > > > > Subject: Re: Trading Partner Logical Identification based on EDIFA
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The EbXML header also calls this (i.e. Message Set ID) a
> > > > > Conversation ID. I find this
> > > > > term to be the most descriptive because an ebXML based Business
> > > > > Process may be conducting
> > > > > several concurrent conversations with the same trading partner.
> > > > > Since this ID is used to
> > > > > link Messages associated with the same conversation I propose we
> > > > > stick with Conversation
> > > > > ID. This will also reduce confusion since the term is already in
> > > > > use in the ebXML header
> > > > > DTD.
> > > > >
> > > > > On a related subject, I have heard the term Message Window in the
> > > > > Reliable Messaging
> > > > > spec. Again my interpretation is that this is referring to a
> > > > > Conversation. If so we
> > > > > should align the terminology and consistently call this concept a
> > > > > Conversation that is
> > > > > identified by a Conversation ID.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there a horizontal team that makes sure we get rapid alignment
> > > > > on common terminology
> > > > > across working groups? If so they should resolve this terminology
> > > > > issue quickly.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Farrukh
> > > > >
> > > > > srh@us.ibm.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > When we decided in Dallas on the term "Message Set" (my
>suggestion) the
> > > > > > intention was
> > > > > > merely to give identification within *an undefined context at
the
>time*
> > > > > > to that conversation/unit-of-business. I happen to like the
term,
>as it
> > > > > > avoids the overloaded *transaction*.
> > > > > > There was no further semantic impled, certianly not routing. If
>we can
> > > > > > seperate what/how issues it may help.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Scott Hinkelman
> > > > > > Senior Software Engineer, IBM Austin
> > > > > > Emerging Technologies, SWG
> > > > > > 512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
> > > > > > srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS on 08/16/2000 03:15:12 PM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To:   David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
> > > > > > cc:   "ebXML Transport (E-mail)"
><ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org>
> > > > > > Subject:  RE: Re[2]: Trading Partner Logical Identification
> > > > > based on EDIFA
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dave,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I haven't been around ebXML long enough to know what the old
> > > > > message set ID
> > > > > > is but let me go into conversation ID a little more.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A conversation (in tpaML terms) is the two way set of messages
> > > > > comprising a
> > > > > > single "unit of business".  It's sort of like a session as I
>think I
> > > > > > pointed out in an earlier post about the messaging
specification.
>So I
> > > > > > think it is equivalent to what you called a message set ID in
> > > > > your posting.
> > > > > > I did point out elsewhere that each party should be allowed to
> > > > > separately
> > > > > > identify the conversation and suggested that the existing
> > > > > conversation ID
> > > > > > should have separate subelements for the two parties.  The
> > > > > reason is that
> > > > > > for routing purposes, the conversation ID should be a rapid
>locator. I
> > > > > > suggested that each partner should be allowed to put in
> > > > > whatever it needs
> > > > > > for its half of the conversation ID to enable rapid locating.
We
>do use
> > > > > > the conversation ID for routing within each party in our IBM
>Research
> > > > > > prototype run-time. I'm not sure that the URI qualifies as a
> > > > > rapid locator
> > > > > > though of course using it shouldn't be precluded.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The TPA is an identifier of the TPA document itself.  The TPA
> > > > > ID identifies
> > > > > > the application and pair of parties while the conversation ID
> > > > > identifies a
> > > > > > specific conversation.  I did err in suggesting that both the
TPA
>ID and
> > > > > > the conversation ID are needed for routing.  If the conversation
>ID is
> > > > > > unique within one party's messaging system, then conversation ID
>is the
> > > > > > routing quantity and the TPA ID could be part of the state
> > > > > information for
> > > > > > the conversation rather than being used for routing.  For the
>greatest
> > > > > > implementation flexibility, however, I strongly suggest that the
>TPA  ID
> > > > > > also be allowed to be a rapid locator and that each party be
>allowed to
> > > > > > choose its own value for the TPA ID.  Clearly, the local TPA
> > > > > IDs could be
> > > > > > associated with a global repository ID for the TPA but it's the
> > > > > two local
> > > > > > values that should be in the message header to give the best
>routing
> > > > > > implementation flexibility.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Marty
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > ******************************************************************
> > > > > *******************
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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 Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com> on 08/16/2000
>02:27:30 PM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> > > > > > cc:   "ebXML Transport (E-mail)"
><ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org>
> > > > > > Subject:  RE: Re[2]: Trading Partner Logical Identification
> > > > > based on EDIFA
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marty
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Somewhere in this text you say ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>Again, it is the combination of registry ID, partner ID, TPA
>ID, and
> > > > > > conversation ID that does the routing<<<
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm under the impression that conversation ID is equivalent to
> > > > > what the TRP
> > > > > > used to call the Message Set Id which was defined as a unique
>identifier
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > the set of messages exchanged between two parties that support
> > > > > the instance
> > > > > > of an execution of a service.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On the other hand the current spec defines conversationId as a
>URI which
> > > > > > identifies the conversation instance of the Trading Partner
> > > > > Agreement which
> > > > > > governs the processing of the message and which holds the state
>of the
> > > > > > conversation between the two Parties
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think these things are quite the same. Can you clarify
>the
> > > > > > distinction between a TPA Id and a Conversation Id. As if a
> > > > > Conversation Id
> > > > > > means the same as the old Message Set Id I don't think it should
>be used
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > routing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > David
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: mwsachs@us.ibm.com [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 3:24 PM
> > > > > > To: David RR Webber
> > > > > > Cc: Mark NOBLES; ebXML-Transport@lists.ebxml.org
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re[2]: Trading Partner Logical Identification based
>on
> > > > > > EDIFA
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Quite a flurry of postings!  I just got caught up on it.  I
> > > > > sense a great
> > > > > > deal of violent agreement on the identifier subject.  I agree
>with Mark
> > > > > > Nobles' last posting and Dave Webber's agreement with it.  Here
> > > > > are a few
> > > > > > summary points:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <SNIP>
> > > > >