Re: RefToMessageID

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

Nikola,

You say "I am mostly motivated here in avoiding to the application the need
to deal with IDs that are not business level,...".

I agree.  The procurement application should not have to deal with those
IDs but application-support middleware will have to deal with them.  As has
been said before, this middleware is in the application layer but it
performs support services for all applications and works best if the
information it needs to deal with is provided in an application-independent
way.  It is also outside the scope of the TRP specifications but the only
carrier for this information that ebXML has is the messaging service
headers.

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



Nikola Stojanovic <nhomest1@twcny.rr.com> on 01/08/2001 06:55:23 PM

To:   "ebXML Transport (E-mail)" <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org>
cc:
Subject:  Re: RefToMessageID



<Martin>
The only role the Messaging Spec needs to play is to provide an
application-independent place to carry this piece of information in normal
messages. Application independence is significant since this field is one
which B2B middleware might process.
</Martin>

<Jacques>
These practical considerations aside (I do not see any problem with
providing to an app the MSH service of accessing and setting
RefToMessageId),
...
I am mostly motivated here in avoiding to the application the need to deal
with IDs that are not business level, but again it does not hurt to have
the
MSH allow for this, as it can be useful in cases I may not have in mind.
It becomes mostly an app design decision to use it or not (after all, V0.91
says that RefToMessageId MUST contain a valid ref value *when present*...)
</Jacques>

It is nice to see that we are thinking along these lines.

Regards,
Nikola