There is nothing explicit in the CPA about ability to return an ACK. The
ebXML TP team assumed that there is nothing optional about returning an ACK
and therefore nothing has to be said about it in the CPA. This statement
is true for both BestEffort and OnceAndOnlyOnce semantics. If the MSG team
is proposing to make an ACK optional, I guess the CPA will have to be
extended for that.
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 Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com> on 11/09/2001 10:16:13 AM
To: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>, Martin W
Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc: Dan Weinreb <dlw@exceloncorp.com>, arvola@tibco.com,
ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Question about OPTIONAL
Is the ability to return an Ack in the CPA?
Internet philosophy is to be as stringent as possible when sending and as
forgiving as possible when receiving.
David.
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com]
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 8:53 AM
To: Martin W Sachs
Cc: David Fischer; Dan Weinreb; arvola@tibco.com;
ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] Question about OPTIONAL
+1
Martin W Sachs wrote:
> Yes, this is the real world and businesses that don't follow the spec are
> creating a serious interoperability exposure for themselves.
Nonetheless,
> if a message violates the intent of the creaters of the CPA (or
equivalent)
> one or the other has made a serious error and processing of the message
> should not continue.
>
> 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 Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com> on 11/08/2001 10:19:07 PM
>
> To: Dan Weinreb <dlw@exceloncorp.com>, arvola@tibco.com
> cc: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Question about OPTIONAL
>
>
>
> I find myself outnumbered so I will acquiesce -- with one final comment.
>
> Businesses in the real world don't like strict rules. I think this will
> fail,
> or more likely implementors will not follow the spec.
>
> - David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Weinreb [mailto:dlw@exceloncorp.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 9:07 PM
> To: arvola@tibco.com
> Cc: mwsachs@us.ibm.com; david@drummondgroup.com;
> ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] Question about OPTIONAL
>
>
> Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 11:07:47 -0800
> From: Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com>
>
> I vote for option 1: Stop processing and send back an Error --
> NotSupported/Error.
>
> I agree, and with the rest of what you said.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>