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

[Martin Sachs <msachs@cyclonecommerce.com>]

Michael,

I have some responses below.

Hima, please respond to some of Michael's points.  In particular, please 
check sections 12.10 and 12.11 for consistency with section 12.12. I did 
not attempt to update 12.10 and 12.11 after receiving the new 12.12 from you.

Regards,
Marty

At 09:54 AM 11/4/2003 -0700, Vetter, Michael wrote:
>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". (section 12.11 in version 0.1)
>
>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.

MWS:  CPA_Final_Doc is the final result when the CPA is not signed.
>
>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.

MWS:  Figure 2 is intended to be an overview and does not show all 
details.  I have put in note referring the reader to section 12.

>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).

MWS:  I believe that you are correct.  The CPA_Final_Doc arrow has been 
reversed since the Jan. 2003 draft.  Hima, please check.


> > >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.

Hima, please check section 12.10 and 12.11 with 12.12, as I mentioned above.
>
>A mapping in the specification would be very helpful if the names for 
>messages and documents remain different.

MWS:  Any remaining inconsistencies between the text and the BPSS instance 
document will be corrected.


*************************************
Martin Sachs
standards architect
Cyclone Commerce
msachs@cyclonecommerce.com