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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-cppa message

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

Subject: Re: reliable messaging - hop by hop

At 06:54 AM 8/29/01, christopher ferris wrote:
>A NRR *may* not be meaningful in a legal sense unless it is
>signed by an authorized signer. The private key for the certificate
>that is authorized *may* not be available to the MSH for security

How you guys keep up this traffic level is beyond me.

Add to CF's list the strong possibility that the sender may have 
effectively delegated, in a manner made binding on the recipient within or 
outside of the XML collaboration, the right to send NRR demands or 
responses to a third party delegate originating at a different point.  This 
requires something like an "authorized signer" inquiry, but worse.

I share Ferris' view that these are best NOT made exclusively MSH 
functions  To repeat a point made elsewhere, we already have some 
duplicative functions in BPSS 1.0 and Messaging 1.0.  The latter were 
somewhat inherited from RNIF 2.0.   I think it best, as noted elsewhere, to 
keep both, but the two coextensive signal sets are not yet optimized, or 
coordinated, and a schema that omits one or the other is unlikely to enjoy 
wide adoption at present.

Regards  Jamie

PS, someone may have to mirror this to OASIS/MSG as I am not subscribed there.

James Bryce Clark
VP and General Counsel
McLure Moynihan Inc.
Chair, ABA Business Law Subcommittee on Electronic Commerce
jamie.clark@mmiec.com,  jbc@lawyer.com
1 818 597 9475   

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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC