MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
ebxml-msg message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] Interaction between AckRequested,DuplicateElimination,and SyncReply elements
[Please note: Yes, this is still me. I had to change email addresses due to
Yahoo! changes.]
Arvola,
This is a very good point covered slightly by issue 127 and might touch on
issues 165-166. If we must interpret "do nothing" or "ignore", it should be
explained in the text or an errata.
In this particular case, the sender isn't waiting for an MSH signal in general.
It should be waiting for the (stored) business response. (The duplicated
elimination flag indicates that response must have been stored.) The text is
incomplete around a more specific sub case of what you've described: when CPA
syncReplyMode="MSH Signals" (or whatever the next level above "none" is called)
and not a mode involving application information. With that clarification, the
original message would also have a problem because no information was available
to reply on the synchronous channel.
The most efficient response when no information is really required would be a
200 OK. Closing the connection would only tell the originator to start retry
cycles. However, sending a "real" body (probably, just an ebXML MessageHeader
element) in the synchronous reply could be useful for duplicate elimination
cases, allowing the receiver to store something as their response.
thanx,
doug
Arvola Chan wrote:
> I like to address the following question, mostly to folks who have already
> implemented ebMS 2.0.
>
> If the sender MSH includes a DuplicateElimination element and a SyncReply
> element, but no AckRequested element in an ebXML message, and the receiver
> MSH determines that the received message is a duplicate, should it simply do
> nothing, as prescribed on line 1681 in the Version 2.0 rev C spec?
>
> The problem of doing nothing is that the sender MSH is waiting for a
> synchronous reply. The connection will not get closed until some timeout
> parameter kicks in either on the sending or receiving side. This doesn't
> seem an efficient way of using network resources. Can "do nothing" be
> interpreted as closing the connection, or returning a 200 OK status code and
> closing the connection?
>
> -Arvola
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC