Re: [ebxml-bp] State Alignment and Web Services

[Kenji Nagahashi <nagahashi@fla.fujitsu.com>]

Hi,

This "pending" sounds like business level semantics, which should not be 
handled at the transport level.
I can provide an example from RosettaNet which supports such "pending" 
status response. While the response message itself is legally binding, 
but you can say "no" later in update message.
There might be a confusion about "legally binding". "legally binding" 
means that you're liable for what you said in the message ("pending" in 
this case), not for selling something no matter what your downstream 
supplier say...?

Kenji

David RR Webber wrote:

> Monica,
> 
> I believe this came out of a scenario that Anders described - where
> he want to Ack the RFQ - but not confirm it until downstream suppliers
> had responded.
> 
> Therefore 'pending' was offered as an additional status.  Anders also
> wanted to make sure that the signal was *not* a legally binding
> response - hence 'pending' again avoids that connotation.
> 
> It all made sense to me at the time - and I included this in the 
> XML example I posted on signals - along with the additional
> two attributes - (BTW - signalType - agree that is not needed - 
> and can be deferred to V3).
> 
> Thanks, DW
> 
> 
>>mm1: David, I do not recall that we defin3ed a pending status in the 
>>special sessions. Dale, can you confirm please. Thanks.
>>
>>
> 
>