[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: AW: [ebxml-cppa-comment] Re: Negotiation message types, business documents and signing
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]