+1
Cliff
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Elliot [mailto:]
> Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 9:21 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] Issue for your review
>
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> > Should it be at the point of getting a HTTP 2xx response? or
> > when the MSH feels it has sent the message but without getting
> > a 2xx? I would think it is the former.
> > If we take the later route (which seems to be what people are
> > saying) then the receiving MSH may get a HTTP 500 AFTER it has
> > sent the MSH ack back. Now the sender side thinks the receiver
> > has got the message but in fact receiver side does not have it!??
>
>
> My feeling is that the state of HTTP (transport level) comms doesn't
> matter here. If the Receiving MSH persists the ebXML message then it has
> received it. If the Sending MSH receives the subsequent ebXML Ack then
> it will not retry and the transaction is complete.
>
> Essentially the Receiving MSH got the ebXML message, the Sending MSH got
> the ebXML Ack, so delivery complete. Whatever is reported by the HTTP
> transport (5xx, 4xx, xxx) along the way does not affect the outcome as the
> ebXML layer data was exchanged ok.
>
> My primary point being that because ebXML has its own reliability
> mechanism it should not be concerned with the state of the transport
> protocol it's using.
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
> Dave Elliot
> XML Global Technologies
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
