[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: PartyID
Bad wording from my side. That's what I meant by saying "supporting intermediaries". I agree with you in that the CPA should also have the ability to hold MultipleParty Ids. -hima christopher ferris wrote: > Himagiri, > > The ability to hold multiple PartyId elements in the To header > is not for purposes of intermediary routing, but for purposes > of allowing the equivalent of aliases that all identify the same > party. > > As for the CPA, I think that this may need to be addressed by the TC. > The schema allows for multiple PartyId elements in the PartyInfo > which is correct (I believe) for both the CPP and CPA. > > I see no reason why there cannot be more than one PartyId in the > CPA. If there are multiple PartyId elements, then each should be > included in the To element of an ebXML message sent to that party. > > As for effectively dealing with intermediary routing, that issue > should be addressed in concert with the MS TC. > > Cheers, > > Chris > > Himagiri Mukkamala wrote: > > > > CPA spec says that there shall be only one PartyId under > > each PartyInfo in a CPA and says only one partyId > > will be included under To and From elements in an ebXML Message. > > > > From MSH spec, there could be multiple partyIds for supporting > > intermediaries. > > > > So, is the assumption that when using a CPA with MSH, > > there be only one PartyId irrespective of number of hops. > > > > -himagiri > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word > > "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-cppa-request@lists.oasis-open.org
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC