[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: ebBP 3/9/2005: Comment re: General Exception Update (wd 10)
After reviewing the proposed text, our discussion today and John Yunker's comments, please review the points below and so we can come to resolution on proposed revised text. 1. If a general exception occurs and the party notifies the other with a general exception signal, the parties are in a known condition (as Dale said a technical failure has occurred). However, if this may result in other actions, is subject to the agreement of the parties. 2. Under choreographed circumstances, if a party is unable to respond with a choreographed receipt acknowledgement within the time specified, that party should exit and, if agreed by the parties, the requesting party MAY issue an NOF or a business retry. 3. If we take the unchoreographed general exception, the parties MAY also agree to subsequent actions that are choreographed. Whether the unchoreographed general exception condition follows the same path as the known conditions (as specified in 2. above) is subject to the agreement of the parties. **4. Note (for Dale Moberg): Need to correct comment error in schema re: Signal element (delete comment).** Given these assumptions are correct, here is revised proposed text: Section 4.8.2.3 [add at the end of this section] As an unplanned event, a general exception MAY result in later actions of the parties that are choreographed. A general exception MAY result in a state transition to a technical failure. Whether further action is required or the technical failure results in any business effect is subject to the agreement of the parties. More business requirements are sought to understand, if and when an NOF should be issued, another business transaction may occur after the return to initial state, or subsequent choreographed actions are required.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]