Re: Ack Message Payload??

[Nikola Stojanovic <nhomest1@twcny.rr.com>]

<Chris>
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.
</Chris>

Some of us discussed this before, and I've expressed my stand that this is a
"VeryImportantPattern". We might call it "ImplicitAcknowledgement" Pattern,
but just for a short period (see David's post and my response on Multi-hop
RM). It looks like it is already in use by POC people for RR lookup. Using
"Normal" and "RefToMessageId" (you can use "ConversationId" on top of them
if you want) gives us not only a mechanism for "ImplicitAcknowledgement",
but also for "AsynchronousRPC" and for "LongCollaboration" Patterns.

<Chris>
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.
</Chris>

I hope we are not going to drop the ball on this one.

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

I had thought of a possible solution when you might use "Normal" and
"ServiceInterface" and "Action" with an empty payload in order to
"BusinessAcknowledge", but I am not sure if that should be considered as a
kludge or not. Empty Business Payloads ("Normal") that DO Business stuff via
"ServiceInterface" and "Action" might not be that bad?

<Chris>
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.
</Chris>

You have my FULL support on this one.

Regards,
Nikola