Re: [ebxml-bp] 1/27/2004: BPSS Signals (Work Item 59)

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

John,

The point is often there are NO LEGAL requirements
for simple informative messages.  Obviously if the message
involves a formal legal commitment - then yes - you need
the confirmations.

Often though its some informative notice - like notice that
another bid has been posted, or that stock levels have
been incremented.  These non-critical message do not
need extensive messaging overhead - in fact the reverse,
they need lightweight low overhead exchanges.

BPSS needs to flexible and responsive to the context
of message usage and information levels.

DW.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
To: "Yunker, John" <yunker@amazon.com>
Cc: <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org>; <himagiri@sybase.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] 1/27/2004: BPSS Signals (Work Item 59)


> Yunker, John wrote:
>
> >I suppose you could put the receipt ack information into the response and
not need a response, however JUST HAVING a response does NOT satisfy legal
requirements on the content of the request nor proof of receipt of the
request.  Most legal disputes that attempt to say "specific action should
have been taken" MUST show that the request (and its content) is exactly
what was received.
> >
> >The question is not timing, not "did they get a request", but more
EXACTLY WHAT was received and EXACTLY WHEN was it received and with proof.
> >
> >John
> >
> mm1: Understood and these business aspects should be entertained before
> any decision is taken. This is important to resolving the work item, for
> business and technical reasons. I'll await other comments and thanks John.
> Thanks.
>
>