+1
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arvola Chan [mailto:arvola@tibco.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 8:49 AM
> To: Dale Moberg; Christopher Ferris; Cliff.Collins@sybase.com
> Cc: ebxml-msg
> Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] question about QoS
>
>
> I get the impression that Dale's interpretation is slightly
> different from Chris'. If the duplicateElimination attribute
> is set to "always" in the CPA, and no DuplicateElimination
> element is present in the message header, Dale's
> interpretation would return an "inconsistent" error whereas
> Chris' interpretation would say that the receiver should
> eliminate duplicates as indicated in the CPA.
>
> My assumption has been that those message characteristics
> that can be made to have "per message" semantics always
> have to be explicitly stated in the message header (and they
> have to be consistent with the CPA) before they take effect.
> Therefore, I vote for Dale's interpretation.
>
> -Arvola
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dale Moberg <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>
> To: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>; Cliff Collins
> <collinsc@sybase.com>
> Cc: ebxml-msg <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Date: Friday, December 07, 2001 8:05 AM
> Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] question about QoS
>
>
> I assume this means, more long windedly, that:
>
> (If a CPA is being used,)
> If the value of the CPA's attribute for
> "duplicateElimination" is either "always"
> or "never," any value included in the
> header shall conform to this agreement
> or else an ebMS error shall be sent.
> If the QOS is omitted, the semantics
> of omission shall conform with the
> CPA agreement. (I assume an omission
> conforms with the "never" value.)
>
>
>
> Dale Moberg
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 5:45 AM
> To: Cliff Collins
> Cc: ebxml-msg
> Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] question about QoS
>
>
> Cliff,
>
> No, it would default to whatever value was reflected
> in the CPA. Having this in the message is only necessary
> when the CPA says "perMessage".
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
> Cliff Collins wrote:
>
> > So the email going around about Qos being required in the message is
> > wrong? It can be absent which would default DuplicateElimination to
> false?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Doug Bunting [mailto:dougb62@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 3:41 PM
> > To: ebxml-msg
> > Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] question about QoS
> >
> > Cliff,
> >
> >
> >
> > In the current schema, we have a three-state value called
> > QualityOfService@duplicateElimination
> > <mailto:QualityOfService@duplicateElimination>. The attribute is
> > required within the element these days. So, the three states are
> 1)
> > QualityOfService absent in the MessageHeader 2)
> > duplicateElimination='false' and 3) duplicateElimination='true'.
> It
> > used to be worse -- duplicateElimination was optional, adding
> > another state without defined meaning.
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't really like three-state "Boolean" values but think we've
> > improved this enough for now. At least, the default value for the
> > attribute (used when the containing element isn't in an instance)
> is
> > well-defined and consistent in the specification.
> >
> >
> >
> > On your second point, you're fighting a battle that's already been
> > lost. A similar suggestion came up and was rejected earlier.
> >
> >
> >
> > thanx,
> >
> > doug
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Cliff Collins <mailto:collinsc@sybase.com>
> >
> > To: ebxml-msg <mailto:ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
> >
> > Sent: Thursday, 06 December 2001 15:27
> >
> > Subject: [ebxml-msg] question about QoS
> >
> >
> > I have 2 questions/comments about the recent talk regarding
> > QualifyOfService and DuplicationElimination.
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. It was said that QoS with DuplicationElimination must be
> present
> > in every message. Does this include MSH types messages where
> > DuplicationElimination would never be true? i.e.
> > ping/ping/StatusRequest/StatusResponse/Acknowledgements must also
> > include QoS with DuplicationElimination =false.
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. Since QualifyOfService only contains one attribute
> > (DuplicationElimination) why not rename the "QualifyOfService"
> > element to "DuplicationElimination"? This would also mean that
> > question #1 above wouldn't make sense. This element would only
> > appear when "DuplicationElimination" is true. This would be more
> in
> > line with other elements like "AckRequested" and "SyncReply". IMO
> > leaving QualifyOfService the way it is seems inconsistent with the
> > rest of the spec.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Cliff Collins
> >
> > mailto:collinsc@sybase.com
> >
> > URL: http://www.skyweyr.com/cliff
> >
> > (510)922-5204
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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>
>
>