AW: [ebxml-cppa-comment] Re: Negotiation message types, business documents and signing

["Vetter, Michael" <Michael.Vetter@iao.fhg.de>]

Dear Marty

I have read the new version of the specification but I did not find answers to all of my questions below. See MV: below.

Regards 

Michael

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Martin Sachs [mailto:msachs@cyclonecommerce.com] 
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 14. Oktober 2003 22:36
> An: Vetter, Michael
> Cc: ebxml-cppa-comment@lists.oasis-open.org; ebxml-cppa-negot
> Betreff: [ebxml-cppa-comment] 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
> >
> >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".

MV: What is the use of CPA_Final_Doc in this case? I assume that the additional CPA_Final_Doc is needed in the BPSS to have complete request-response transactions. If this is correct I would prefer that the CPA_accept is not signed to differentiate the messages.  
There is still an inconsistency: In figure 2 acceptance is answered by a final response but the state diagrams in figures 5 and 6 additionally use the CPA_Final_Doc.
The text (line 1692) says consistently with the BPSS that CPA_Final_Doc is sent by the party that accepted the offer but my interpretation of the starting state in figure 6 is the opposite (CPA_Final_Doc is sent by the party that received the CPA_Accept_Offer_Doc).


> >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. ...

> >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? 

MV: Can you confirm this? This is not consistent with the BPSS.  
A mapping in the specification would be very helpful if the names for messages and documents remain different.