OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

bdxr message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [bdxr] Minutes of BDXR TC meeting 29 April 2015

Dear all

As agreed at last week's conference call Ken has been working on implementing agreed changes to the specification, while I have started compiling the attached draft comment resolution log. Before progressing further with a new draft of the specification I'd like to propose the following two additions to the datamodel, which have come up while I was working mapping functional gaps between the BDE and the SBDH:
  • Identifier for a user specific customization of the BDE (similar to UBL's CustomizationID);
  • Contact information (name, email, phone, etc.) for sending party as well as for receiving party.
Although these have not been brought up in our gathering and processing of requirements I believe this is useful information that we need to contemplate including in the data model.

Best regards,


From: Kenneth Bengtsson
Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 7:41 PM
To: "bdxr@lists.oasis-open.org"
Subject: [bdxr] Minutes of BDXR TC meeting 29 April 2015



Jens Aabol
Kenneth Bengtsson (chair)
Erlend Klakegg Bergheim
Kees Duvekot
Sander Fieten
Ken Holman


The TC reviewed the comments received for the BDX BDE CSPRD01, which were resolved as follows:
  • All comments received from TC Admin (https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/bdxr-comment/201503/msg00001.html) were accepted and will be implemented.
  • Comments from ePrior (https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/bdxr-comment/201504/msg00002.html):
    1. Potential issues with parsing of large files with binary content: The BDE is content agnostic by design, meaning that the envelope does not and should no have an opinion about what is inside – binary or not. It is up to implementers to create specific policies for the content of the envelope.
    2. Only one receiver ID is supported: The BDE is designed and intended for point-to-point such as in 4-cornered architectures. However, we would be interested in hearing if ePrior has one or more specific use-cases for multicasting. Kenneth to contact ePrior.
    3. Support for “external attachments”: The exact purpose of this comment is unclear as it would seem that a requirement for external attachments should be supported by a given content (business document) of the envelope and not by the envelope itself. Kenneth to ask for clarification.
  • Comment from Ole Madsen, DIGST (https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/bdxr-comment/201504/msg00003.html): Albeit the comment does not relate directly to the public review of the BDE specification it was generally deemed as a good idea to have a simple feature comparison between the BDE and other envelopes/headers. Kenneth to make a simple comparison between the BDE and the SBDH and to ask Ole if any additional specifications that should be analysed as well.
  • Comments from Patrick Durusau, OASIS TAB (https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/bdxr-comment/201504/msg00006.html): All comments were reviewed and proposals for resolutions were found. Ken to send candidate answers directly to Kenneth.
    • Old comments originating from the BDXL review more than a year ago seem to have been mixed up with comments for the BDE review. Kenneth to contact TC Admin.
Kenneth will commence a comment resolution log with the above candidate resolutions and share with the TC mailing list.


There were no updates on the statements of use for the BDXL and SMP specifications.


There was no other business.


May 13 2015, regular conference call
May 27 2015, regular conference call
June 10 2015, regular conference call

Kenneth Bengtsson

Attachment: bdx-bde-v1.0-csprd01-comment-resolution-log 150507.xls
Description: bdx-bde-v1.0-csprd01-comment-resolution-log 150507.xls

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]