Re: TPA and ebXML Header question

[Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

Such a "checked OK" message would have to be sent in response to every
received message even though a transport-level acknowledgment had been
received and before a business-level response.  That approximately doubles
the message traffic.  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

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

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



Zvi Bruckner <zvi.b@sapiens.com> on 09/28/2000 06:01:14 AM

To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org, ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
Subject:  Re: TPA and ebXML Header question



Thanks for the explanation.

Continuing the same line with message types defined in the Overview and
Requirements
document:

Is there any identification in the header for "Checked OK" message ?
Its definition implies that it is sent by MS after for example XML
validation that can be
done after already sending an Ack message to confirm delivery.

Zvi Bruckner
Sapiens Technologies

Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM wrote:

> Tzvi,
>
> Since the ebXML trading-partners team got started only last month,
details
> like the one you are questioning have not yet been considered.  Also, the
> statement you are pointing to in the IBM tpaML proposal may be obsolete
(I
> am not sure at this point).  Version 1.0.6 of tpaML defines a separate
> response message for exception conditions and a separate action
definition
> at the other party to process exception response messages.  It may be
that
> such an indicator is not needed in the header if ebXML retains the
> exception response message definition. It depends on whether the
Messaging
> Service has to be aware that a message is reporting an exception
condition
> which is to be processed by the business process level.
>
> 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
>
*************************************************************************************

>
> Zvi Bruckner <zvi.b@sapiens.com> on 09/26/2000 10:34:27 AM
>
> To:   ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> cc:
> Subject:  TPA and ebXML Header question
>
> According to a note in the TPA specs (2.9.19.2):
> "The framework-level information associated with the message indicates
> only success or failure...In addition a field in the standard message
> header ... may indicate success or failure"
> >From what I could understand the MessgaeType attribute of the
> ebXMLHeader with the value of Error means an MS error message. Is there
> a way to specify application success/failure in the header ?
>
> Zvi Bruckner
> Sapiens Technologies