[ebxml-cppa-negot] BPSS loose ends

[Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

I believe that the following are still open matters for the negotiation
BPSS.  Please comment.

Two of the the business document names contain the characters "DOC" in the
value of the name attribute and "doc" in the value of the nameId attribute.
They are "CPA Final Response DOC/doc" and "CPA Final Response DOC/doc
Signed".  This is not necessarily a problem but if comparisons of text
strings are case-sensitive, it could cause some confusion or programming
errors. It would be better to use "doc" in both the name and the nameId
attribute as is the case with  all the other business documents.

There are no condition tests for rejection conditions in the exchange of
the final CPAs. Reasons can include:
- The final CPA does not agree with the recipient's understanding of what
should be in it (some kind of state-tracking mismatch).
- The final CPA was not signed although signing was agreed to.
- The signature on the final CPA cannot be validated.
- The second signature on the double-signed CPA cannot be validated.
- An acknowledgment was received when a double-signed CPA was expected.

The "CPA Final Response doc" document is used for both acceptance and
reject. Except for this case, a message receipient can determine success or
failure from the business document name in the message.  For "CPA Final
Response doc"  we need a separate success/failure indicator in the message,
that indicator has to be checked, and handling of the condition is outside
the choreography.

Regards,
Marty
*************************************************************************************

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************