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

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

David RR Webber wrote:

>Monica,
>
>I implemented it because I thought we were all agreed
>on the need for 'pending'.  Now noone wants to own
>this - except perhaps Kenji is now saying "yes - and
>some history - need for pending was also discovered
>by RosettaNet in their exchanges".
>  
>
mm1: I asked Kenji to provide the use case to the team so we could 
discuss Monday, 19 June 2004.

>I don't just sit around and make these things up
>for the heck of it.  We discussed this for about
>10 minutes on the call - and working around
>the legally commitment issues - and the fact
>that 'succeed / failure' were only options was
>brought up as a big problem.
>  
>
mm1: My point to you was clarification on isLegallyBinding. Why don't 
you bring what you feel 'pending' means to the call? Thanks.