[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Fwd: AW: [ebxml-cppa-comment] Re: Negotiation message types, business documents and signing
From Michael Vetter: >Thread-Topic: [ebxml-cppa-comment] Re: Negotiation message types, business >documents and signing >Thread-Index: AcOSkq+cJYU+XwAoTe2mJ6nSHpBfYgQR1hJw >X-XWall-Bayes: 21 >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: AW: [ebxml-cppa-comment] Re: Negotiation message types, business >documents and signing >Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 09:54:11 -0700 >X-Assembled-By: XWall v3.28 >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Nov 2003 16:54:18.0274 (UTC) >FILETIME=[49582820:01C3A2F4] > >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. ************************************* Martin Sachs standards architect Cyclone Commerce msachs@cyclonecommerce.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]