RE: Messaging Service CPP/CPA [was: Ack Message Payload??]

[Krishna Sankar <ksankar@cisco.com>]

Hi,

	Thanks for the support. This question came up during the RM discussion.

	The use case was about resetting the sequence numbers. Either we can send a
message with -1 to say, we are resetting the seq numbers or just roll over
to 1. Both assume some implied intelligence and assumptions on the part of
the message handler, when it handles normal (meaning normal, ack and error
types) messages. But this shouldn't be, a standard should avoid any implied
assumptions and all implications should be explicit ! Hence the logic for a
new control message type. The reason why we didn't encounter this might have
been because, only now we are incorporating RM and security. IMHO, security
would need the control messages to sort out things between the message
handlers.

	On further thought, may be the error and ack messages are sub-types of
control messages. So may be the classification should be normal and control,
with the control having a type attribute which can take multiple values
(ack, error, RMControl, SecurityControl) et al. Of course, we can have the
control messages as headers (like the RMHeader and SecurityHeader) and then
embed the control directives in those tags.

	Reading your e-mail, I also realize that we might need a control message
type for BP as well.

	cheers and have a nice day

-----Original Message-----
From: Nikola Stojanovic [mailto:nhomest1@twcny.rr.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 10:12 AM
To: Ebxml-Poc (E-mail); Ebxml-Transport (E-mail)
Cc: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Subject: Re: Messaging Service CPP/CPA [was: Ack Message Payload??]


<Krishna>
Can we also consider adding a <controlMessage/> as well, which could be used
for message level control stuff like reset sequence numbers et al ? This
would enable the messaging systems to exchange TRP level controls -
including dynamic security reconfiguration, reliable messaging
reconfiguration  et al.
</Krishna>

Looks to me like a potentially valuable topic for CPP/CPA (TPP/TPA) ->
"MS/Transport" capabilities (see TA draft, chapter 16) as well. However, I
would suggest that representative Usages (UseCases) are needed before making
any decision.

Regards,
Nikola