OASIS ebXML Messaging Services TC

 View Only

[ebxml-msg] RE: Public usage scenario documents

  • 1.  [ebxml-msg] RE: Public usage scenario documents

    Posted 05-28-2002 09:35
     MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    ebxml-msg message

    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


    Subject: [ebxml-msg] RE: Public usage scenario documents


    
    David,
    
    You are repeating an age-old argument, that a good implementer will know
    what to do.
    
    - Except that there are plenty of well-publicized disasters that were
    clearly a result of under-specification and the implementers didn't make
    the right choices.
    
    - Except that in this case, there is a small matter of interoperability
    between arms-length implementations, so merely relying on implementers to
    know what to do won't get us there unless the specification is precise and
    complete.
    
    As for the disasters, here are two that, in my opinion, clearly result from
    underspecification:
    
    - The Mars orbiter that failed because someone mixed English and Metric
    units.
    
    - The Ariane 5 disaster.  The rocket crashed because of an arithmetic
    overflow.  A software component that calculated with the horizontal
    component of the rocket's acceleration was lifted from Ariane 4.  But
    Ariane 5 accelerated much faster and the computation overflowed, flooding
    the system bus with error messages, killing the on-board systems.  Worse,
    the component that failed should not have been on Ariane 5 at all because
    its computation wasn't needed.
    
    The point is that today's systems are far too complex to leave it to each
    implementer to get it right and interoperable with every other implementer.
    Each one is left to interpret the spec and do "the right thing".  Even if
    everyone is top notch, the interpretations should not be expected to match.
    
    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
    *************************************************************************************
    
    
                                                                                                                                 
                          David RR Webber -                                                                                      
                          XMLGlobal                To:       Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS                                     
                          <Gnosis_@compuser        cc:       "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>,      
                          ve.com>                   ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org, Randy Clark <Randy.Clark@bakerhughes.com>,   
                                                    "'bhaugen'" <linkage@interaccess.com>, eBTWG List <ebtwg@lists.ebtwg.org>,   
                          05/28/2002 12:14          "'Duane Nickull'" <duane@xmlglobal.com>, Christopher Ferris                  
                          AM                        <chris.ferris@sun.com>                                                       
                                                   Subject:  RE: Public usage scenario documents                                 
                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                 
    
    
    
    Message text written by Martin W Sachs
    >     Both parties to the message exchange MUST persist enough state to
    allow recovery and getting back in sync. Specific state variables must
         be prescribed.  They are at least those variables needed to restore
    the state of the transaction and conversation after system recovery, such
         as the conversation ID, CPA Id, service, action, and perhaps other
    parts of the message header.
    
         Timeouts and retries, as prescribed in the MSG spec, are not
    sufficient to cover system failures since the failure could last a very
    long time.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    
    Marty,
    
    There appears to me to be no big surprise there.   I would say this was
    EDI 101 - and that we hardly need things in the spec' which teach
    people how to build applications systems.
    
    People who know how to build product will include these feature sets
    and augment them according to their customer base requirements.
    So we do not need to teach this - and worse - it potentially forces
    people to build this in - even if their use case / customer model
    can use a lesser level of functionality quite happily.
    
    We have avoided this with Registry for example.
    
    If you are building a reliable messaging product - you are going to
    have a all manner of features in it over and above - like being able
    to check that the confirmation was signed by someone with
    a wristwatch on their left arm, et al/
    
    Or worse - what about hardware level verification of tamperproof
    retention for authentication in a five year time frame?   At some point
    you have to quit and know - this is outside our scope.
    
    Let's not confuse functional level detail - with technical specifications.
    
    Cheers, DW.
    
    
    
    
    
    


    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


    Powered by eList eXpress LLC