I don't understand either. Why would an error in a single message
stop a Conversation?
Regards,
David.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Brooks
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 1:49
PM
To: David Fischer; ;
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Reliable
Messaging question
David,
I'm not sure I understand this statement from the
spec: "...there
is an unrecoverable error in the message and no further messages will be
generated as part of the
conversation."
If a ConversationID is synonymous with a "Session"
there will likely be multiple message exchanges, including some with
ErrorList, throughout the course of the session. IMO, the spec should not
dictate the behavior of a Conversation, this is application
specific.
It may be the intent of this statement
is to indicate the "responder" will send no further "responses" after
issuing an ErrorList. That is understandable. However, a client MUST be
able to send additional request messages over the same ConversationId,
after receiving an ErrorList response, and the server should be
able to respond to these additional requests.
Dick Brooks
Systrends, Inc
7855 South River Parkway,
Suite 111
Tempe, Arizona 85284
Web: www.systrends.com <http://www.systrends.com>
Phone:480.756.6777,Mobile:205-790-1542,eFax:240-352-0714
-----Original Message-----
From: David Fischer
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002
11:04 AM
To: ;
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Reliable
Messaging question
The spec says, in section 4.2.3.2.4, that if there is an error
severity of Error, "...there
is an unrecoverable error in the message and no further messages will be
generated as part of the conversation." How can we then continue to
send retries after an ErrorList with error severity of
Error?
Maybe
the problem we need to clarify is in the Error section rather than in the RM
section? OTOH, maybe the statement in 4.2.3.2.4 is
enough.
Regards,
David.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Wang
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 2:57
AM
To:
Subject: Re:
[ebxml-msg] Reliable Messaging question
If the
position is to let the retry kick in then are we saying the sender MSH
should "ignore" the ErrorList message and just let the retry to
complete?
Then report back to application of the N retries it did and
all the Errors it
got back?
David's comment makes sense. I can't think of a reson why I would
respond
in the same message with an Acknowledgment element AND an
ErrorList
element . I would only ack a message after all MSH
level related validation
has passed.
May be too late for 2.0 but I would say this introduces unnecessary
complexity.
Should probabaly be looked into post 2.0.
-mw
Doug Bunting wrote:
David,
Almost every error may be transient. Further, our documentation
gives no "out" for the sending MSH other than exceeding the Retries
parameter or receiving an appropriate Acknowledgment. Adding the
ErrorList element to that list of outs would be very different from 1.0
and would involve multiple changes to our document. That's in
spite of the a receiving MSH already being able to send ErrorList and
Acknowledgment together.
125 was an editorial issue because the other parts of our
specification were clear what could stop retries. The section
referenced in issue 125 muddied things. Let's not turn this into a
new technical issue.
thanx,
doug
David Fischer wrote:
Why would an
MSH continue sending retries after receiving an ErrorList for that
MessageId? Section 6.5.7 indicates that when a message cannot be
delivered then a DFN must be returned. You are right though, it
doesn't actually say not to send any more retries. I'm a
little confused... If an Acknowledgment is present with an
ErrorList, does that mean the MSH does or doesn't send a DFN to the
application? I suppose if the message got far enough so that the
receiving MSH could actually generate an Acknowledgment then that
would constitute delivery for the purposes of RM? I think this would be OK -- send an ErrorList
and an Acknowledgment together.I'm
still not clear why the sending MSH would continue to send retries if
it got an ErrorList (containing the appropriate RefToMessageId) from
the receiving MSH but without an Acknowledgment?Regards,David
FischerDrummond
Group.
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Bunting [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, February
13, 2002 7:23 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg]
Reliable Messaging question
Arvola,
I believe this is captured in issue 125. In David's
response [1], he indicated an ErrorList could end retries but that
interpretation is not borne out by our current documentation and
seems incorrect. I would suggest we stick with the current
retry semantics and end retries only upon receipt of an
Acknowledgment or exhaustion of allowable retries. If a MSH
receiving a message in error chooses to respond with an
Acknowledgment bundled together with an ErrorList, fine.
I also agree this option (combining Acknowledgment with
ErrorList) isn't well described. Improving that description
was the intent of issue 125.
thanx,
doug
[1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-msg/200202/msg00006.html
(specifically, the XML file attached and unhelpfully inlined by the
OASIS site)
Arvola Chan wrote:
Section 7.5.2 in Draft
version 2.0 describes Receiving Message Behavior under the ebXML
Reliable Messaging Protocol. It does not mention anything about
error handling. Suppose the received message
is erroneous (e.g., some elements in the message are inconsistent
with the CPA), the receiver is obligated to return an Error
message. It is not clear to me if an Acknowledgment MUST also be
included in the Error message. Does the Error
message serve as an implicit Acknowledgement? Will the sender keep
retrying until it gets back an Acknowledgment (i.e., as long as
the number of allowable retries have not been exhausted)?
Thanks,-Arvola
winmail.dat
