I, also, believe that parties should rely on other (unspecified) means to
synchronize clocks and this should not be a part of MSS. Had I been more
involved with the 1.1 spec you would have had me arguing this point - I
think it got in through a lack of proper review. Mea culpa.
jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 6:35 AM
> To: Dale Moberg
> Cc: ebXML Msg; ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: msh TimeAccuracy RE: T2 Reliable Messaging w/o CPA or
> VIA...
>
>
>
> I don't agree with synchronizing clocks. None of the time
> elements in the
> message service spec are absolute times as far as I recall. They are
> intervals. The state of the art of timing should be good
> enough to let
> each end time its own intervals and not to need a timer
> accuracy parameter
> (here, I agree with Chris). The CPA has one or two absolute
> times but the
> intervals with which they are associated are measured in days
> or longer -
> again no synchronization or timer accuracy requirement is needed.
>
> I think I am repeating myself but just to make sure: The
> real problem is
> that the message service specification does not state where
> each of the
> reliable messaging parameters (and perhaps other also?) is
> located. 10.2
> and 10.2.1 Delivery semantics say "either the CPA or the
> message header".
> For the rest of the parameters, nothing is said at all about
> where they are
> found. This is not an implementer's choice. Each one must be
> specified as
> being in the message header or in the CPA.
>
> 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
> **************************************************************
> ***********************
>
>
>
> Dale Moberg <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com> on 08/01/2001 06:55:48 PM
>
> To: ebXML Msg <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
> cc: ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: msh TimeAccuracy RE: T2 Reliable Messaging w/o CPA or VIA...
>
>
>
>
> >> mshTimeAccuracy
> >> >>>This is the accuracy to which a recipient of a
> message claims
> to keep their internal
> >> system clocks. This should probably be part of a CPP and not
> vary from message to message
> >> therefore it does not need to be in the MessageHeader
> >> [David Fischer] Agreed, but what if there is no CPP? I'm not
> sure why this is necessary.
>
> Chris Ferris>It isn't represented in the CPP, nor should it be. I have
> repeatedly expressed my
> >belief that this is unnecessary at best, and more likely
> unimplementable in any event [1].
>
> >If anything, I could see parties agreeing to a requirement that their
> respective
> >system's system clock be synchronized using something like
> NTP or some
> similar
> >service and having this reflected in some manner within the
> CPP/A, but
> not mshTimeAccuracy!
>
> >I for one would like to see this removed from the 1.1 specification.
>
> I agree with Chris that the use of
> NTP to synchronize clocks at a distance
> is something that is suitable for a CPA
> and that the use of NTP
> or XNTP or whatever could be
> advertized in a CPP. I also agree
> that putting the mshTimeAccuracy
> in the MessageHeader
> is definitely excess baggage!
> Should be removed.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-msg-request@lists.oasis-open.org
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-msg-request@lists.oasis-open.org
>