Re: Negotiation message types, business documents and signing

[Martin Sachs <msachs@cyclonecommerce.com>]

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