OASIS ebXML Messaging Services TC

Re: [ebxml-msg] some issues affecting header design

  • 1.  Re: [ebxml-msg] some issues affecting header design

    Posted 09-20-2004 21:31
     MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    ebxml-msg message

    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


    Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] some issues affecting header design


    Jacques,
    
    I am not sure I understand your last comments below.  In WS-R, correlation 
    of the response using the "layer below" is unnecessary[1] in general. 
    While that may be the most obvious way to do some correlations, RM-Reply 
    information MUST be correlated with the original message using the 
    RefToMessageId mechanism because multiple RM-Replies may always be grouped 
    together.
    
    It is true, the business payload might be correlated using the underlying 
    protocol.  This results in a bizarre architectural layering: SOAP 
    extensions supporting the "infrastructure and the underlying protocol 
    supporting the "application".  It is also unspecified in the WS-Reliability 
    specification.  Other mechanisms (such as identifying the relevant request 
    in the first RM-Reply) are possible through out-of-band agreement.
    
    In short, "supported by the layer below" does not immediately imply 
    "necessary".  Could you please explain your thinking more completely?
    
    thanx,
    	doug
    
    [1] ... as in REQUIRED in the RFC 2119 sense
    
    On 20-Sep-04 11:58, Jacques Durand wrote:
    
    >     5. Message identity:
    >     do we need an identity in addition to RM identity. That is still
    >     unclear.
    >     Implementation aspects (which MSH+RMP architectures will/not handle
    >     a single indentity?) need be considered.
    > 
    >     [JWT] Although multiple identities(MessageIds) in the Message would
    >     seem redundant and confusing, it might be necessary to correlate
    >     messages within an MEP at the MSH level. However, you are correct,
    >     this is still unclear, and arguments can be made for and against
    >     this. We definitely need to discuss this further.
    >     [Jacques Durand] I see one case where the MSH needs to correlate
    >     Response wirth Request . In case this is implemented with SOAP
    >     request-response MEP, we can assume the correlation is supported by
    >     the layer below. But depending on what kind of duplicate scenarios
    >     we expect, and whether we still want this correlation even for
    >     asynchronous ebMS Request-response MEPs, we may need a distinct ebMS
    >     ID. It also depends on the role we expect from RefToMessageId.
    > 
    >      
    > 
    >     Jacques
    
    


    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]