end-to-end RM option in case of WS-ReliableMessaging

Following the 
end-to-end RM option for a Push mep in case of 
WS-ReliableMessaging:

 

 

Assumptions: 
(actually needed whenever RM sequences are used, regardless of which reliability 
specification)

 

- the sender always 
knows which messages are for the same destination, even if the decision about 
what this destination is (URL) is left to the routing function. A destination is 
also supposed to map to a single RM destination (i.e. there are not two RM 
Destination modules serving the same business destination)

- the sender knows 
what fileds in a message are used to resolve the routing path, so that a dummy 
ebMS [user] message can be crafted to establish the RM sequence prior to sending 
actual user messages. Recommendation is: to simply use MPCs as routing 
means.

 

Features:

 

Piggybacking of an 
ebMS "dummy"  message on all RM sequence management 
messages.

No new ebMS signal 
needs be designed for this piggybacking : a "dummy"  user message has the 
service field set to: http://docs.oasis-open.org/ebxml-msg/ebms/v3.0/ns/core/200704/service

which is enough to 
process it correctly in core V3, i.e. to NOT deliver it to the MSH consumer 
layer. (that way, no additional feature is required from the destination MSH, 
other than core V3 compliance). We might want to specify a new Action field 
value, but no need to interpret it on receiver side.

 

- teh response RM 
management messages need be routed back. Suggest to put the burden of the 
piggybacking for these responses on the last MSH intermediary, not on the 
ultimate MSH who should not be aware of the RM-thru-intermediaries 
aspects.

 

 

Comments: all this 
is about using ebMS intermediaries. Clearly, alternative forms of multi-hop 
routing can apply to achieve end-to-end reliable exchanges, such as SOAP 
intermediaries (non-MSH) that use WS-addressing wsa:To, wsa;From or 
wsa:Action headers.  Both styles can co-exist: such SOAP nodes 
could be intertwined with MSH intermediaries on a path. We do not specify that 
one. In that case, different nodes on a path will use different routing info 
(e.g. wsa header vs. ebMS header).

 

Jacques