Re: Ack Message Payload??

[Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>]

Jim Hughes wrote:
> 
> Dick,
> 
> With respect to MS ACKs sent for Reliable Messaging, the end of MS spec
> 0.21d section 7.11 details the values used... If we agree that an ACK is
> also used to convey BP-level information, then I agree we need to talk
> about this in Tokyo...
> 
> Jim
> 
<snip/>

All,

David put forth a discussion on implicit ACKs while we were
in Dallas. The idea was that a MessageType=Normal *could*
be used as both a BP-level response as well as an implicit
ACK. 

We agreed to defer the discussion to phase II because it
was felt that we had our plate full and we couldn't easily
get to consensus.

Marc B suggested that we might redefine the MessageType
from an attribute to an element and allow it to have
multiple values.

e.g.

<ebXMLHeader ...>
	<Header>
		<MessageType>
			<Normal/>
			<Acknowledgment/>
		</MessageType>
		...
	</Header>
</ebXMLHeader>

Or, possibly:

<ebXMLHeader ...>
	<Header>
		<MessageType type="Normal"/>
		<MessageType type="Acknowledgment"/>
		...
	</Header>
</ebXMLHeader>

This would certainly make it clearer as to the
purpose of the message, and would make it simpler
to handle correctly.

I am uncomfortable in trying to overload a single
attribute value to serve multiple meanings. It over-complicates
the protocol IMHO.

I would support a discussion on the matter @ Tokyo.

Regardless, I think that a BP-level ACK *should* have
a payload, even if it is a minimal one like:
	<status>OK</status>

It SHALL have a MessageType="Normal" and it SHALL have
a ServiceInterface and Action appropriate to its purpose
at least for the current state of affairs.

Cheers,

Chris