RE: Reliable Messaging reference

Ugo
 
I was the editor of version 1.0 of the ebXML Reliable Messaging and wrote
most of the original sections on Reliable Messaging and the ideas behind it.
I agree that the spec is worth re-reading - particularly for some of the
detailed thought it contains.
 
Having had plenty of time to reflect on the work that was done ini ebXML, I
do think though that it can be improved. Many of my thoughts are desrcribed
in the email I have just posted on "Different Levels of Reliable Messaging".
 
The bottom line, in my opinion, is that there are different ways of doing
"reliable messaging" which offer increasing levels of reliability and
confidence in the outcome in return for the application of increasing levels
of effort/functionality/complexity. We need to determine what is appropriate
to investigate and should be in (or out) of any Reliable Messaging activity
as I don't think that "one size fits all". 
 
Regards
 
David

-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 2:30 PM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Reliable Messaging reference



I just reread ebXML's work on Reliable Messaging (see [1], Part II, Sec. 6,
Reliable Messaging Module), and it looks like required reading for any
discussion on this subject within our group (so that we don't spend a lot of
time redoing what has already been done). 

Besides the specific syntax used, which belongs to ebXML and does not need
to be duplicated, I am curious to know if people find deficiencies, or have
any other type of observations, regarding the reliability model used.

Ugo 

[1]
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/documents/ebMS_v2_0rev_c.pdf
<http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/documents/ebMS_v2_0rev_c.pdf
>