+1,
This is what I had brought up at F2F.
-hima
Cliff Collins wrote:
> >
> >
> > I don't get error on ack at all. If I receive an
> > acknowledgment message, and for whatever reason cannot
> > process it (let's say it was mangled in transit)
> > then I'll simply resend the original message
> > until I get an ack, or until either the message's TTL
> > expires or the retries have been exhausted at which
> > time I'll notify the application that I have not
> > received an acknowledgment confirming the message's
> > receipt by the intended recipient.
>
> Acks can now also be used for Non-repudiation of receipt. This means that if
> the ds:References are not included or it is not signed and the CPA says it
> was suppose to be than this is an ERROR of inconsistent. Waiting for the
> retry doesn't solve the error.
>
> >
> > As for ack on error, why on earth cannot an error
> > be treated with all of the same QoS as a normal
> > message?!?!? What if the recipient wants to be sure that
> > the original sender is notified that there has been
> > a problem in processing the message? Seems perfectly
> > reasonable to me to allow this.
>
> I look at this another way, since errors (in general) are generated by the
> MSH in response to a message they are not a reliably sent message any more
> than we would make "acks" be resent automatically. The error is in response
> to a message. If the sending MSH sends the message again, we would error
> again, not the other way. This is in contrast to continually sending an
> error for a message we received that was in error.
>
> >
> > The circularity comes only (IMO) when you error on
> > an acknowledgment because this would require that
> > the sender of the acknowledgment provide for the
> > ability to process the error (as well as for specification
> > as to what processing is required which is currently
> > not addressed in the specification).
> >
> > IMO, the only thing that the spec should say is that
> > an ack cannot be requested for an acknowledgment message.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > Cliff Collins wrote:
> >
> > > I like Error on Ack (like the 1.0 model) the best.
> > >
> > > If we allow Ack on Error then it becomes really messy when there is a
> > > failure on the Ack message. And when the retries are reached on
> > sending an
> > > "error" over RM does this generate another error of delivery
> > failure? Messy
> > > :-)
> > >
> > >
> > >>