W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > June 2004

Re: Issue 490

From: Anders W. Tell <opensource@toolsmiths.se>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:36:07 +0200
Message-ID: <40E17047.5090609@toolsmiths.se>
To: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net>
Cc: WS-Choreography List <public-ws-chor@w3.org>

Steve Ross-Talbot wrote:

> 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.

Yes

> In the second case that the receiver is responsible for responsible 
> for receiving a message from the sender.

No and yes, The receiver is responsible to make sure that a message can 
be sent all the way and is responsible for fixing probems and offer 
alterantive routes if neccessary. Receiver may also be responsibe for 
asking about expected but missing messages.

> 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?


Yes, this is what Dispatch and Reach means. Reach conditions supply 
answers to the question "did you have or had access to the data message"

Note that time and timepuot could be calculated based on Reach OR 
Dispatch events.

> 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.


 From a legal point of the software stack has very little or no 
signifcance in this case.
In most cases the sender does not care how  receiver has organized its 
internal system. Its the receivers risk how he handles incomming message.

cheers
/anders
Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2004 09:37:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:25 UTC