Re: PartyID

[Himagiri Mukkamala <himagiri@sybase.com>]

Bad wording from my side. That's what I meant by saying "supporting
intermediaries".

I agree with you in that
the CPA should also have the ability to hold MultipleParty Ids.

-hima
christopher ferris wrote:

> Himagiri,
>
> The ability to hold multiple PartyId elements in the To header
> is not for purposes of intermediary routing, but for purposes
> of allowing the equivalent of aliases that all identify the same
> party.
>
> As for the CPA, I think that this may need to be addressed by the TC.
> The schema allows for multiple PartyId elements in the PartyInfo
> which is correct (I believe) for both the CPP and CPA.
>
> I see no reason why there cannot be more than one PartyId in the
> CPA. If there are multiple PartyId elements, then each should be
> included in the To element of an ebXML message sent to that party.
>
> As for effectively dealing with intermediary routing, that issue
> should be addressed in concert with the MS TC.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
> Himagiri Mukkamala wrote:
> >
> > CPA spec says that there shall be only one PartyId under
> > each PartyInfo in a CPA and says only one partyId
> > will be included under To and From elements in an ebXML Message.
> >
> > From MSH spec, there could be multiple partyIds for supporting
> > intermediaries.
> >
> > So, is the assumption that when using a CPA with MSH,
> > there be only one PartyId irrespective of number of hops.
> >
> > -himagiri
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> > "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-cppa-request@lists.oasis-open.org