Re: Issue 490

Anders,

Do you mean the following?

In the first case that the sender could have the contractual obligation 
to ensure that the receiver receives a message.
In the second case that the receiver is responsible for responsible for 
receiving a message from the sender.

In which case what does receive really mean? Does it mean that the 
message can be shown to have been sent by the sender to the receiver? 
Does it mean that message can be shown to have been received by the 
receiver? At what point in the software stack does acknowledgement of 
such responsibility occur? Is it at the network level, the 
messaging/comms software level or at the application/semantic level?

Depending on the answer it may have some impact on WS-CDL or none at 
all.

Cheers

Steve T


On 29 Jun 2004, at 12:17, Anders W. Tell wrote:

> Hi ,
>
> I have not followed the details in the CDL work but have a question.
>
> How do you plan to handle "risk-allocation" which is neccessary for 
> eCommerce?
> Riskallocation in it simplest form is that the sender OR receiver is 
> responsible to make sure that a message or notice is communication 
> from sender to receiver.
>
> /anders
>
> Steve Ross-Talbot wrote:
>
>>
>> Summary:
>>     CDL - Issue I-03
>>
>> Description:
>> Issue I-03. Do we add additional standard states to describe the 
>> outcomes of using reliable messaging protocols? Similarly, should we 
>> include additional states to handle other outcomes, such as security 
>> failure
>>
>> Resolution:
>> No we do not need any states at all. We simply need some mechanism 
>> for the naming of a state or an observable interaction or 
>> non-interaction. WS-CDL already supports this so there is nothing 
>> further to do.
>>
>> Proposal:
>>     Change status from ASSIGNED to RESOLVED WONTFIX
>>
>

Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2004 07:31:34 UTC