That's fine then.
Martin W Sachs wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I agree with everything you say. You can't possibly use persistDuration to
> control how long the conversationId has to be persisted. No argument at
> all.
>
> I am simply less trusting than you are of "reasonable implementers" so I
> suggested underlining that persistDuration is not applicable to message
> ordering and conversationId retention. That's all. If I really had my way,
> I would capture a number of the points from your posting in the
> non-normative statement that persistDuration is not applicable to meesage
> ordering and conversationId retention.
>
> 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
> *************************************************************************************
>
>
>
> Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com> on 12/05/2001 10:17:12 AM
>
> To: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
> cc:
> Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] Re: Comments on the 1.09 about ConversationId
>
>
>
> Marty,
>
> I respectfully disagree. I don't think that we need to say
> anything.
>
> persistDuration is a parameter that the parties have agreed
> to use as the minimum amount of time that the party shall
> commit to preserving message artifacts necessary for
> support of the RM function (in many cases, messageId is
> sufficient so that possible duplicate transmissions
> of A MESSAGE can be detected).
>
> A conversation will potentially have a SIGNIFICANTLY
> longer duration than the lifetime of a single message
> for purposes of reliable delivery. It could be weeks or
> months. IMO it would be foolish to reuse the persistDuration
> for purposes of determining how long to preserve the
> conversational state of an exchange between parties
> which would include SequenceNumber when used in conjunction
> with message ordering.
>
> Conversational state MUST be preserved for the life of the
> conversation, period, full stop. One could include the list
> of messageIds of all messages for a conversation in the
> conversational state, but that would be potentially inefficient
> w/r/t persistent store, especially given that after persistDuration
> has expired the sending MSH should not (must not?) attempt
> to redeliver a message to the receiving party that has been
> unacknowledged.
>
> The point is that the purpose of the persistDuration parameter
> is to provide a reasonable limit on the amount of time that
> a receiving party needs to preserve messageId in persistent
> store for purposes of filtering out potential duplicate
> transmissions of a single message. It has NOTHING to do with
> the conversational state of an exchaneg between parties.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
> Martin W Sachs wrote:
>
>
>>You need to say enough in the MSG spec to inform an implementer that
>>persistDuration follows different rules for conversationId and
>>last-ordered-message than for reliable messaging. Considering the amount
>>of discussion we have had on this point, we cannot assume that a
>>"reasonable implementer" will know what to do. There are plenty of
>>
> examples
>
>>in the newspapers about deadly mistakes made by reasonable implementers.
>>The Risks Forum mut be full of them.
>>
>>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
>>
>>
> *************************************************************************************
>
>
>>
>>
>>Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com> on 12/04/2001 09:39:42 PM
>>
>>To: David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com>
>>cc: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, Dan Weinreb
>>
> <dlw@exceloncorp.com>,
>
>> ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
>>Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] Re: Comments on the 1.09 about ConversationId
>>
>>
>>
>>The thing I have trouble with here is why we have to say anything
>>in the spec. This is too suggestive of implementation detail
>>IMO (although probably accurate). Why do we need to say anything
>>about this at all?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>David Fischer wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>OK, I think that will work, but it is not the whole message which needs
>>>
>>>
>>to be
>>
>>
>>>saved. Once the message is delivered to the application, just the
>>>
>>>
>>MessageId,
>>
>>
>>>CPAId, persistDuration, ConversationId, SequenceNumber (did I get
>>>
>>>
>>everything?)
>>
>>
>>>need to be saved. The spec says now only the MessageId needs to be saved
>>>
>>>
>>but
>>
>>
>>>that's not enough for MessageOrder.
>>>
>>>David.
>>>
>>>