[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Section 3.1.2 reworking of what appeared to beconsensus view, action item 1
Dale, I agree with the second sentence as you give it below. Regards, Marty X-Apparently-To: martin_w_sachs@sbcglobal.net via web80108.mail.yahoo.com; 13 Mar 2003 19:00:05 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [128.103.219.45] Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Section 3.1.2 reworking of what appeared to be consensus view, action item 1 Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:00:02 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ebxml-msg] Section 3.1.2 reworking of what appeared to be consensus view, action item 1 Thread-Index: AcLpPkxAkwq0Of8zQRmdBGq99MBSeAAlZ08A From: "Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com> To: "Martin Sachs" <m.w.sachs@post.harvard.edu>, "ebxml-msg" <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org> Marty, Let me rephrase the second sentence because I _did_ intend to say that something is optional to implement. I think this optionality to implement (the real MAY) is what the consensus was in the group. "A receiver MAY implement the ability to turn off checking for conflicts between a CPA and messages (for performance or other reasons)." In other words, it is not mandatory to implement a configurability capability that allows turning off checking. The implication would be that a sender cannot count on being able to avoid error code reports of Inconsistent, and so must be prepared to deal with them always. The implementer must be able to check for "Inconsistent" type errors, and can always do so--never ignoring the error. However, a vendor may choose to allow an Inconsistent error to be ignored by turning off a check. But this section was agreed by all to be tricky. Is this any better? Has the apparent inconsistency been removed? Dale Moberg ============== Marty said The word MAY is not appropriate in the second sentence because it permits a vendor to omit checking whether messages conflict with the CPA, in conflict with the first sentence, which requires that the check be implemented. I suggest for the second sentence: It is permissible for a receiver to configure its MSH not to check whether messages conflict..." At 06:57 PM 3/12/2003 -0700, Dale Moberg wrote: > From Section 3.1.2 >New DRAFT language > >A receiver MUST be capable of determining that a message is in conflict >with an actual CPA agreed to between the parties. A receiver MAY be >configured not to check whether messages conflict with the CPA >governing the message, for performance or some other reason. If a >receiver checks whether the message conforms with an agreed upon CPA >governing the message, then if a Receiving MSH detects an >inconsistency, then it MUST report it with an errorCode of Inconsistent >and a severity of Error. > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> ************************************* Martin Sachs standards architect Cyclone Commerce msachs@cyclonecommerce.com ************************************************* Martin W. Sachs email: m.w.sachs@post.harvard.edu phone: 203-226-0524 ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> ************************************************* Martin W. Sachs email: m.w.sachs@post.harvard.edu phone: 203-226-0524 ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]