[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: Ack Message Payload??
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
Powered by eList eXpress LLC