[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: Negotiation message types, business documents and signing
Dear Michael, Here are some initial answers to your questions. I am looking forward to further replies from the people who are experts on these areas. See MWS: below. At 08:07 AM 10/7/2003 -0700, Vetter, Michael wrote: >Dear Marty > >I have some more questions and comments to the CPA negotiation spec: > >In 13.12 (page 50) it is not clear to me whether "receiving party" and >"sending party" are allways the same or change after each message. MWS: "receiving party" and "sending party" refer to the destination and source of the message, so they change after every message. >Is >the acceptance message already accompanied by the signed CPA (if signing >is agreed) or does it just return the unchanged CPA? Since there are >Accepted and SingleSigned message types I would assume the later is >correct, but figure 2 and section 5.2 indicate that the accepted CPA is >signed immediately. >A corrected version of figure 6 could clarify this. MWS: The acceptance message is accompanied by the signed CPA. See section 13.12, "Conclusion of Negotiation". >What is the difference between negotiation "messageTypeValue" and >"BPSSBusinessDocumentName" in the message schema? Most of them are >corresponding but the names for the final transaction differ. It would >be less confusing if they were identical. If the last comment on page 52 >is the only reason for a difference then I suggest changing the >negotiation BPSS instance. The use of either a new CPA_Reject_Final_Doc >or a CPA_Reject_Doc for both cases (offer and final) would eliminate the >need for differing types. MWS: This will be corrected, in the way you are suggesting, in the next draft. >Is "Unsigned" the response to "Accepted" when it was agreed not to sign? >Is "Signed" the response to "SinglePartySigned" when it was agreed to >sign? >"DoubleSigned" instead of "Signed" would be clearer in this case. MWS: We will consider this suggestion. >In section 12.1.7 there are CPA_Final_Response_Doc and >CPA_Final_Response_Doc_Signed documents. Why is there only a >CPA_Final_Doc and no "CPA_Final_Doc_Signed"? > MWS: I have asked our expert on the BPSS instance to consider the above points. >I am looking forward to your new specification draft. > >Best regards > >Michael Vetter >________________________________________________________________________ >____ > > Dipl.-Inform. Michael Vetter > CC Electronic Business Integration > Fraunhofer IAO (Institut fuer Arbeitswirtschaft und >Organisation) > mail: Nobelstrasse 12, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany > phone: +49 (0) 711 970 2324 > fax: +49 (0) 711 970 5111 > email: Michael.Vetter@iao.fhg.de > www: www.ebi.iao.fraunhofer.de >________________________________________________________________________ >____ ************************************* Martin Sachs standards architect Cyclone Commerce msachs@cyclonecommerce.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]