Fwd: Negotiation message types, business documents and signing

[Martin Sachs <msachs@cyclonecommerce.com>]

I am forwarding this and another message from Michael Vetter for
your  consideration and comment, in case you did not see them on
ebxml-cppa-comment.

Please send your reply to this list with copies to:

Michael.Vetter@iao.fhg.de

ebxml-cppa-comment@lists.oasis-open.org

Regards,
Marty

Thread-Topic: Negotiation message types, business documents and signing
Thread-Index: AcNTFx/QAqr8+PRJRNaS4HuWpgdgKA5o2/mQ
X-XWall-Bayes: 20
From: "Vetter, Michael" <Michael.Vetter@iao.fhg.de>
To: Martin Sachs <msachs@cyclonecommerce.com>
Cc: "ebxml-cppa-comment@lists.oasis-open.org" <ebxml-cppa-comment@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Negotiation message types, business documents and signing
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 08:07:14 -0700
X-Assembled-By: XWall v3.27
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Oct 2003 15:07:22.0045 (UTC) FILETIME=[B5684ED0:01C38CE4]

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. 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.

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.
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.

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"?


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