RE: TPA and ebXML Header question

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

Summing up what I think I have seen on MS ACKS (composite of opinion, not
necessarily consensus):

MS ACKs are needed (this is essential to reliable messaging)

The messaging service should not require blocking of a logical channel
until an MS ACK is received.

Blocking may in any case be enforced by business-level responses.

Partner Profile and Partner Agreement should specify whether blocking is
required.
   Note:  in my opinion, this tag would refer to the messaging service
   ACKs, not the business process.  Blocking at the business process level
   would be specified in the business process model and manifest itself in
   the PA in the response definitions and sequencing rules or whatever
   equivalent we come up with.

New point:  For many applications, the latency effects of blocking at the
MS level would be substantially reduced if what we are calling a logical
channel is really a conversation.  A good implementation would provide for
many concurrent conversations even within a single PA.  Thus when the MS
blocks until receiving an ACK it would only affect the conversation of
which the message and ACK are a part.

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



Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS on 10/04/2000 10:17:01 AM

To:   Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com>
cc:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, David RR Webber
      <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>, 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



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.