Resending with nonempty attachment FW: CPPA issues

[Dale Moberg <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>]

Here is another try at posting the attachment.

Tony, I will try to see what is preventing
the post from your new address.

Dale Moberg

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Anthony Weida [mailto:rweida@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 9:01 AM
To: Dale Moberg
Subject: CPPA issues


Please forward this message and attachment.  Thanks!

Attached is the first release of the issues list in RTF format.  It
includes issues prior to yesterday's teleconference.  Please review the
list and especially check if it includes all important issues that
you've previously raised.  PLEASE respond with new email threads, use
descriptive subject prefixes (such as "New issue:" and "Redundant
issues:"), and provide pointers to the original email or document as
appropriate.

Some notes:

   - The ID number associated with a given issue will be preserved
   - Issues are sorted primarily by category, secondarily by submitter
   - Some issues have multiple categories
   - The current categories are:
	 - Messaging
	 - Transport
	 - BPSS
	 - Business Collaboration Specs (more general than BPSS)
	 - Negotiation
	 - Packaging
	 - Security
	 - Tools
	 - Intermediaries
	 - Middleware
	 - XML
	 - Specification document
	 - Collateral
	 - Miscellaneous
   - At Marty's suggestion, inclusion of negotiation issues is deferred
   - Issues from the OASIS Messaging committee collected by Tim and by
     Arvola are not included in this list, but I'm inclined to create a
     separate (abbreviated) table in our database for tracking purposes.
     For simplicity, some database columns are omitted from this list
     I just saw that David Burdett has included hyperlinks to source
     documents in the Messaging Committee's database, and I recognize
     that it's a good idea.

Tony


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
{\rtf1\ansi\paperh15840\paperw12240\margl1440\margr1440\margt720\margb720\psz1{\colortbl\red0\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;}{\fonttbl\f0\fcharset0\fnil Arial;\f1\fcharset0\fnil Arial;\f2\fcharset0\fnil Arial;\f3\fcharset0\fnil Arial;\f4\fcharset0\fnil Arial Black;\f5\fcharset0\fnil Arial;}\pard\plain\sb60\tx90{\plain\tab\fs56\b\f1\cf0\cb1 CPPA Issues{\fs65\par}}\pard\plain\sb278\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BPSS{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 38{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Better way of specifying combinations of characteristics{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Currently, there is one Characteristics element per delivery channel. Yet each {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 business transaction may have a different combination of characteristics. We need a {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 better way of specifying characteristics than by multiplying the number of delivery {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 channels.  See "alternatives and choices" below.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb167\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BPSS{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 18{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BPSS timeToPerform for BusinessTransactionActivity and related CPPA parameters{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The BPSS Process Specification document has a timeToPerform attribute of the {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BusinessTransactionActivity element. This is the maximum allowed service time for a {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 request, defined separately for each business transaction.  However the BPSS does {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 not define the number of retries or retry interval. One could add number of retries and {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 retry interval to the CPP-CPA but it isn't clear that it makes sense without including {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 retries in the BPSS choreography. It isn't clear whether the BPSS would have to be {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 extended to cover retries or at least to include  attributes that express number of {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 retries and retry interval.  If these were defined in the BPSS, then the corresponding {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 items in the CPP-CPA would define override values. Overrides of timeToPerform and {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 retry interval might make sense since these quantities are probably {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb203\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb2900\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 1 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BPSS{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 19{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BPSS timeToPerform for Binary Collaboration and related CPPA parameters{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The BPSS defines timeToPerform for a binary collaboration.  Should this be in the {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 CPA (with number of retries and retry interval)?  timeToPerform in a binary {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 collaboration is the time to execute the full set of business transactions.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BPSS{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 20{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BPSS timeToAcknowledgeReceipt and timeToAcknowledgeAcceptance{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The BPSS also defines timeToAcknowledgeReceipt and {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 timeToAcknowledgeAcceptance.  These deal with business signals rather than with {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 application-level responses. Are override attributes for these needed in the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 CPP-CPA?  Do these require number of retries and retry interval?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb167\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BPSS{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 21{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Consistency of timeouts and installation tools{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The CPP-CPA-BPSS installation tools will have to check the consistency of the relative{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  values of the timeouts at the three levels (business signals, business transaction, and{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  binary collaboration. Some rules are already present in the BPSS spec.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb787\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 2 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BPSS{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 37{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Direct selection of binary collaborations{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 - Have the CPA directly select the binary collaboration(s) that are applicable. Add to {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the ProcessSpecification element a child element (cardinality one or more) that {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 contains an xlink pointing directly to a binary collaboration{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BPSS{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 39{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Link from action attribute to matching business transaction{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 - Currently, the link from the action attribute (Override element) to the matching {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 business transaction in the Process-Specification document is the equality of the value{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  of the action attribute to the value of the name attribute in the desired {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BusinessTransaction element. Use of an xlink may be better for the installation tools.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 - At the July 24-25 meeting it was suggested that Xpointer be considered to define the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb173\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb4970\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 3 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BPSS{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 42{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Guaranteed Delivery{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 In the BPSS, guaranteed delivery is stated as requiring third-party guarantees of {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 delivery and nothing is said about reliable messaging.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 - Should the BPSS have some definitions related to use of reliable messaging between{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  each role and the third party?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 - Do we need something in the CPP-CPA to cover third-party-based guarantees?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 - The BPSS has no definitions about reliable messaging between two parties. Is any {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 thing needed or is this a matter only for CPP-CPA and messaging service?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb185\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BPSS{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 43{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Binary Collaboration with more than one business transaction{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The BPSS says that a binary collaboration should not be used when business {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 transaction rollback is required. Presumably, issue is what to do about earlier business{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  transactions in the binary collaboration when one has to be rolled back.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 - Is there another way to specify a unit of work containing multiple business {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 transactions?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 - The usual solution to rollback of a business transaction within a larger unit of work is {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 to roll back the failed business transaction and perform compensating transactions on {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the earlier ones.  The compensating transactions are application-dependent and {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 would have to be included in the choreography. Should the BPSS cover compensating{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb197\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb3330\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 4 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BPSS{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 45{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 "Optional" attributes{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 If any BPSS attributes may or may not appear, we may need rules in the CPPA spec {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 about how to deal with an attribute in the CPP-CPA that does not appear in the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 referenced Process Specification document.  Should such an attribute be treated as if {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 it is present in the Process Specification document? Should the installation tools {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb167\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BPSS{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 41{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Nonrepudiation of business signals{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Does the CPP-CPA need definitions in the delivery channel, in addition to listing the {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 attributes in the Characteristics element, that support nonrepudiation of origin and {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb155\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb5380\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 5 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BPSS{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 40{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BPSS isNonrepudiationRequired attribute and CPPA Nonrepudiation element{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The BPSS defines this attribute as requiring the message sender to save an audit {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 trail. It has no signing semantics. The isTamperProof attribute controls signing of the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 business document. isTamperProof may be needed in the CPP-CPA Characteristics {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 element.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The CPP-CPA Nonrepudiation element is defined as covering signing and "prevents {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 later nonrepudiation".  Perhaps the definition should be expanded to explicitly cover {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb185\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BPSS{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 44{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Other BPSS attributes to be reflected in CPPA?{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Are there other attributes that need to be reflected in the CPP-CPA?  See, for {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 example, Arvola Chan's comments posted to the CPPA list 7/22/01.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb155\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb4765\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 6 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BPSS{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 78{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Relationship between Acknowledgement, DeliveryReceipt,and BPSS Business Signals{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 According to the Messaging Service spec, the Acknowledgement element is an {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 optional element that is used by one MHS to indicate to another MHS that it has {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 received a message (to support the implementation of reliable messaging). The {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 DeliveryReceipt element is defined as an optional element that is used by the To Party{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  who received a message to let the From Party who sent the original message know {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb173\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 7/22/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: Relationship between Acknowledgement, DeliveryReceipt,and BPSS Business {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BPSS{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 111{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Overriding Timing Parameters Specified in a Business Process{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 … BPSS parameters that can be overridden are essentially boolean attributes. (In {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 fact, it would be rather cumbersome for a party to indicate that it can accept both True{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  and False values for these attributes. Essentially, all acceptable combinations would {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 have to be enumerated!) There is no established convention to specify the range of {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 acceptable values for non boolean attributes as well their preferred values. Therefore,{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  it is not clear to me whether such enhancements can be introduced easily.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb179\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/20/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: Overriding Timing Parameters Specified in a Business Process{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb4355\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 7 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BPSS{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 90{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 T2 Non repudiation and MSG, CPP/A, BPSS spec alignment{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The BPSS spec says that nonRepudiationOfReceipt (NRR) is tied to the{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ReceiptAcknowledgement signal. NRR and reliable messaging are orthogonal. A{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 business process may specify the non repudiation of receipt for the{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 requesting business activity business message and/or the repudiation of{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 receipt for the responding business activity business message, without{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 requiring that reliable messaging be used. I think the Messaging Service{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 should not tie NRR to the DeliveryReceipt element if the latter is used{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 exclusively in reliable messaging.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The MSH is not responsible for validating the syntax of payloads. NRR at the{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 MSH level does not really implement NRR as called for by the business{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 process specification. NRR at the BPSS level includes syntax validation on{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the payloads. Receipt Acknowledgement business signals have to be persisted{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 in order to satisfy legal requirements implied by NRR. I just don't see the{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 utility of persisting the DeliveryReceipt generated at the MSH level in{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 addition to the ReceiptAcknowledgement signal. This may just be unnecessary{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 overhead.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Currently, NRR parameters are tied to the DeliveryChannel element in the{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 CPP/A. According to Marty, these parameters may have to be relocated / added{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 to the ProcessSpecification and/or the Role element in order to properly{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 model the non repudiation requirements associated with the business process.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 I strongly feel that non repudation is one area that the MSG, CPP/A, and BP{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 groups must closely coordinate among themselves in their 1.1 specifications.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb308\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/30/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: T2 Non repudiation and MSG, CPP/A, BPSS spec alignment{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BPSS{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Sachs{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 134{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 isIntelligibleCheckRequired property from BPSS{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The BPSS specification has a Boolean isIntelligibleCheckRequired property {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 associated with receipt acknowledgement to indicate if a syntax check is entailed. {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Marty wasn't sure if not sure if we have that in our version 1.0 [we don't] and opined {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 that it's starting to look like it ought to be included.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb167\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 call{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/6/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb665\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 8 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BPSS{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Sachs{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 135{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Technical report on interoperability across Messaging, BPSS and CPPA specs{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 We might want to consider a technical report on interoperability across the Messaging,{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  BPSS and CPPA specifications. Dale agreed with the idea and felt that someone {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 needs to draft it, but wasn't sure who.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 call{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/6/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BPSS{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Moberg{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 91{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Delivery Receipt, NRR and MSG/CPPA/BPSS (mis-)alignment and thelayering {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Details to be distilled.  See the thread starting with the cited email.{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/31/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: Delivery Receipt, NRR and MSG/CPPA/BPSS (mis-)alignment and thelayering {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 mishmash (was jumbled into: reliable messaging - hop by hop){\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb155\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Business Collaboration {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 46{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Overrides of details in BPSS Instance Document (Process Specification Document){\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Details to override include attribute values, business document types, etc. An override{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  capability permits tailoring a BPSS instance document without having to replicate it, {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 modify it, and treat it as a new business collaboration.  Two proposals have been put {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 forward, which may be useful together. They were presented at the July 24-25 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 meeting/{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·	Karsten Riemer's substitution proposal.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·	Tony Weida's proposal to use ds:Transforms to produce the effect of modifying the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb185\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb377\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 9 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Business Collaboration {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 15{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Business collaboration specifications besides BPSS{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 We should provide for use of "foreign" business-collaboration specifications as {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 alternatives to the Specification Schema model.  Examples might be:{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·Hand-crafted collaboration protocols based on a tpaML-like language{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·Collaboration protocols based on WSDL{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·Collaboration protocols based on alternative models such as WSFL, BPML, or {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 whatever these evolve into.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Some of these may involve joint work with the BP team or collaboration with the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 appropriate W3C team.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb197\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Business Collaboration {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 25{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Specializations of generic business processes for specific partners{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Specialization of the Process-Specification document for specific pairs of partners can {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 be done using the 'substitution' capability that was added to BPSS at Vienna. In {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 general this concerns how to have generic business processes, and yet be able to {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 process specializations of those for the specific partners. This would be joint work with {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb167\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb3945\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 10 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Business Collaboration {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 26{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Composition of Services{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 David Burdett asked whether it is possible to use the same service in different {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 business processes. An example is a payment authority that offers a payment {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 authorization service that accepts a payment request and returns a payment response{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  that conforms to some part of the IFX specification. This could be used in many {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 different processes to make a payment, e.g. to pay an invoice, to get foreign {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 exchange, etc. It would be really good if a payment authority could just define the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 service once and then everyone could use it in whatever business process it is {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 needed in. This can be done with the existing CPA definition since a CPA can {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 reference multiple Process Specification documents, one of which could be the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 payment process.  However, there is no way to choreograph the interaction between {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the payment process and the accompanying business process.  This is probably a {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BPSS issue.  The IBM WSFL web-services proposal includes composition of services {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb10\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Business Collaboration {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 17{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Timeouts, number of retries, and retry interval{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Should the CPA provide for specifying timeout, number of retries, and retry interval for{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  business-level responses?  If the Specification Schema provides these parameters, {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 then they probably have to be given values in the CPA. As with the security attributes, {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 what is in the Process Specification document can be viewed as a default or {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 recommendation with the agreed values specified in the CPP/CPA. For example, the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 timeout might depend on a Party's specific implementation of the process.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb179\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb3125\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 11 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Business Collaboration {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Moberg{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 128{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Two-phase commit and long-running transactions{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Dale mentioned the OASIS BTP team and the possibility of addressing two-phase {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 commits and long running transactions – is it feasible to accommodate them?  Marty {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 answered that we have very little about conversations in version 1.0; he suspects that {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 we need much more for two-phase commit.  In terms of scope, we must decide if it’s {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 likely to become important in the next 18 months. {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 …{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 We consider our relation with BTP.  Might we use BPSS, XLANG, WSFL or similar {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 specs together with BTP?  Tim cited a difficulty with BTP: it dictates the message {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 sequence, e.g., certain timeouts.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb197\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Scottsdale F2F{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Business Collaboration {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Weida{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 121{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Business rules and constraints{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Capture business constraints and rules that specify context-dependent validation of a {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 B2BI system's runtime behavior (for both profiles and agreements).  See cited {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 reference for more details.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Scottsdale F2F{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-cppa/meetings/business_rules_and_const{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 raints.ppt{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb155\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb3987\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 12 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Collateral{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 27{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 CPA Use Cases{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  It has been suggested that a technical report be prepared that discusses various use {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 cases for the CPA.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb155\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Collateral{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 73{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Publication of text forms of the DTD and XSD files{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 We need to decide where to publish the text forms of future versions of the {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Collateral{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Collier{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 85{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Primer on message construction{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  A primer on how the message is constructed gets my vote.  Especially, if it{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 addresses how the security features are incorporated.  It might be quite a{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 job though, as it should include the BP, CPP/A, and MSH teams.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/7/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: RE: T2: ackRequested attribute in Via element{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb1565\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 13 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Intermediaries{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 23{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  Intermediaries and Multihop Scenarios{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Use of intermediaries may need to be accounted for in the CPA. Intermediaries include{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  trading services of various kinds.  The use of a proxy outside a Party's firewall is a {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 specific case of an intermediary.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Are there cases where an intermediary has to understand the value of the CPAId {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 element in the message header?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Reliable messaging through an intermediary might be a CPA matter.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The following discussion is from the Sept. 6 2001 teleconference minutes:  Marty told {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 us that the multiparty case involves major issues about which party is privy to what {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 information; what state has to be tracked by who, etc. He said that while BPSS has {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 some provision for multiparty collaboration, it really just amounts to a set of binary {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 collaborations. In his opinion, we should steer clear of multipart collaborations until we {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 have more immediate issues under control - meanwhile we can get away with sets of {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 binary collaborations. Dale pointed out that the ebXML POC showed multiparty {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 collaboration, but all CPPA properties pertained to end-to-end interaction, which Marty{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  characterized as a case of passive store and forward intermediaries. Dale suggested {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 that if an intermediary's role is important to a business process, that should be {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 captured via BPSS. Arvola mentioned the CPAId in the Messaging header. One can {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 also specify a CPA between the sender and (the first) intermediary, probably using the{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  Messaging specification's via element, which Arvola thinks has its own Service and {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Action elements [it does]. Dale suspects a gap between BPSS and intermediary {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 provisions in MSH. Brian will work with David Burdett on that. One point of view was {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 expressed that if Party A says to send to a 3rd party and Party B does send it there, {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 that's sufficient - Party B has fulfilled its obligation under a CPPA. Another case occurs{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  when Party A can only send to an intermediary such as Commerce One, but has an {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 obligation (under a CPA) to send it to the ultimate recipient. Dale expressed the view {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 that the whole area of "interconnects" is out of scope for version 1.1 - we don't even {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 provide for VANs as transports. Although VANs showed up in tpaML, Marty advised {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 that it was merely as a placeholder.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 [Also see email re Draft of Requirements for Intermediary Support for discussion - Aug{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb142\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb3618\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 14 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Intermediaries{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 11{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Third-party security services{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Use of third-party security services (this is a special case of an intermediary).{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Intermediaries{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 42{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Guaranteed Delivery{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 In the BPSS, guaranteed delivery is stated as requiring third-party guarantees of {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 delivery and nothing is said about reliable messaging.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 - Should the BPSS have some definitions related to use of reliable messaging between{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  each role and the third party?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 - Do we need something in the CPP-CPA to cover third-party-based guarantees?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 - The BPSS has no definitions about reliable messaging between two parties. Is any {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 thing needed or is this a matter only for CPP-CPA and messaging service?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb185\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb4928\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 15 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Intermediaries{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Sachs{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 86{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Designation of mutually trusted third party{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 One of the scenarios I was wondering about was an intermediary that{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 functions as a mutually-trusted party that adds signed timestamps to{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 messages.  So if A sends a message to B through this IM, B receives a{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 message that contains the original message from A, plus a time value,{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 signed by the IM, so that B can later prove (provide evidence) that{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the message was generated before time T and that B received it after{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 time T.  This scenario has IM signing something that might have{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 already been signed by A, i.e. nested signing, which is not at all{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 uncommon in cryptologic protocols, but which doesn't seem to be{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 something contemplated by the existing Message Service spec.  So I{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 suppose this is a scenario that we do not propose to deal with.  But{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 one of the interesting things about it is that the fact that the{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 messages need to be timestamped by a mutually-trusted third party, and{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the question of who we mutually trust, are really parts of a business{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 agreement and would therefore logically belong in the actual CPA.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 But just because someone can invent a scenario does not mean that{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 supporting it is a requirement!  The real question is what use{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 cases are actually required.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb272\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/14/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: Re: T2 - Assertions and Questions{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 22{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Alternative message services{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The specification tries to make it clear that a user of a CPP or CPA may use an {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 alternative message service such as SOAP or XML Protocol.  However, the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 specification does not prescribe a formal way to add the alternative messaging {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 service.  The user must revise the schema or DTD to eliminate the ebXMLBinding {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 element and add whatever new element is needed. For this approach, we need to {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 change the cardinality of ebXMLBinding to (0 or 1). Other possibilities:{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 - Add an extensibility element to be used when introducing an alternative messaging {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 service.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 - Provide xxxBinding elements for commonly used messaging services.  SOAP 1.1 and {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 XML Protocol (when available).  All these "supported" elements would be defined as {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb203\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb665\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 16 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 47{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Normative Appendix on Use of the CPA with the ebXML Message Service{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 This appendix is an outstanding item from Ver. 1.0. There are ambiguities in the {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Message Service Specification that result from treating the CPA as optional.  {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Therefore, the CPP-CPA specification has to define exactly how various elements in {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the message header are to be used with a CPA.  This item should be joint work with {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the MSG team. Some examples:{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·	Possible clarification of the role of the Service and Action elements in the header.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·	How the RefToMessageId element is to be used in application-level request and {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 response messages (see "Routing of Response Messages" below).{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·	Clarification of some of the Reliable Messaging issues pointed out by Arvola Chan {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 (see "Reliable Messaging Consistency" below).{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb203\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 42{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Guaranteed Delivery{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 In the BPSS, guaranteed delivery is stated as requiring third-party guarantees of {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 delivery and nothing is said about reliable messaging.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 - Should the BPSS have some definitions related to use of reliable messaging between{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  each role and the third party?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 - Do we need something in the CPP-CPA to cover third-party-based guarantees?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 - The BPSS has no definitions about reliable messaging between two parties. Is any {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 thing needed or is this a matter only for CPP-CPA and messaging service?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb185\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb3125\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 17 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 69{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Payload Compression:{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Should the CPP and CPA support payload compression?  This element would indicate {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 whether the sending party is sending compressed payload and what the compression {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 algorithm is.  It could be:{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·	Once for each party's set of business transactions{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·	Once per message definition.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·	Interaction between compression and encryption (at a minimum, compression must {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 precede encryption since encryption reduces compressibility.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·	Compression of part vs. the whole message.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 See also email from Arvola Chan on 21 Aug 2001 re Transport level compression and {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 followups.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb224\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 51{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Timeout for delivery failure notification{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 A party needs to know how long to wait for successful delivery or a delivery failure {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 notification.  The maximum waiting time is a bit longer than the maximum time for {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 retries.  Because RetryInterval may be shorter or longer than the internal timeout that {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the Message Service Handler uses for deciding whether to retry, some discussion with {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the MSG team is needed on how to determine the maximum time and whether anything{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb173\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb3330\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 18 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 50{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Delivery failure negotiation{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Delivery failure notification is internal to each party.  However, if the MSG team retains {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the optionality of delivery failure notification, this team should consider whether to {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 include an element or attribute in the CPA that states whether the parties agree to {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 require guaranteed delivery failure notification.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb167\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 54{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 RefToMessageId element in Message Header{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The following requires some definition work with the MSG team.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 There is no explicit statement in the Message Service spec about the use of the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 RefToMessageId element in messages other than message service to message {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 service control messages.  Use in application-level messages is valuable and will not {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 interfere with the currently defined use and the necessary words should be added.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·	In an application-level response message, the RefToMessageId element should {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 contain the ID of the message that the message is responding to. This is necessary to {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 disambiguate the case described in "Routing of Response Messages" above.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·	At the same time, words should be added which allow the RefToMessageId to be {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 used in an application-level request message.  This would, for example, allowing a {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 message requesting a compensation action to point to the message being {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 compensated.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·	It may be necessary to add an indicator somewhere in the message header that the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 message is a response to a prior application-level message.  This indicator would be {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 supplied by the sending application and would enable the receiving system to {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 recognize that the message is a response and the RefToMessageId element should {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 be used as part of the information that routes the message to the appropriate software{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb52\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb2100\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 19 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 132{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Is MSH the endpoint for Nonrepudiation of receipt?{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Marty feels there is confusion about whether or not the MSH is the endpoint for NRR {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 functionality. That impacts where NRR information belongs in a CPP/A.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb155\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 call{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/6/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 49{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 PersistDuration{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 There is some ambiguity in the Message Service specification as to whether this is {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 internal to each party or something that has to be agreed upon.  Discussions with the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 MSG team are needed{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb5585\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 20 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Ferris{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 80{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Advertise use of of NTP,  XNTP etc. in CPP{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 >>      mshTimeAccuracy{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 >>      >>>This is the accuracy to which a recipient of a message claims{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 to keep their internal{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 >>      system clocks. This should probably be part of a CPP and not{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 vary from message to message{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 >>      therefore it does not need to be in the MessageHeader{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 >>      [David Fischer] Agreed, but what if there is no CPP?  I'm not{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 sure why this is necessary.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chris Ferris>It isn't represented in the CPP, nor should it be. I have{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 repeatedly expressed my {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 >belief that this is unnecessary at best, and more likely{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 unimplementable in any event [1].{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 >If anything, I could see parties agreeing to a requirement that their{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 respective {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 >system's system clock be synchronized using something like NTP or some{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 similar{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 >service and having this reflected in some manner within the CPP/A, but{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 not mshTimeAccuracy!{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 >I for one would like to see this removed from the 1.1 specification.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 I agree with Chris that the use of {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 NTP to synchronize clocks at a distance {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 is something that is suitable for a CPA {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 and that the use of NTP{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 or XNTP or whatever could be {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 advertized in a CPP. I also agree{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 that putting the mshTimeAccuracy {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 in the MessageHeader {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 is definitely excess baggage!{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Should be removed.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb356\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/1/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 (via Dale M) Subject: msh TimeAccuracy RE: T2 Reliable Messaging w/o CPA or VIA...{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb3618\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 21 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 126{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 SMTP Delivery Status Notification and Message Disposition Notification{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The following is an excerpt from section 2.4.3.3 in the RNIF 2.0 Core Specification:{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Email-based message transfer is a store-forward-based message delivery mechanism {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 and the SMTP messages need not be sent directly between the source and the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 eventual recipient's SMTP nodes (due to SMTP routing involved). Hence, trading {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 partners cannot rely on any synchronous transport level errors (analogous to HTTP {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 response/error codes) being returned. Therefore, trading partners MUST have a {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 mechanism in place to handle undeliverable email messages sent to each other. {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Delivered messages with content problems SHOULD, however, result in the recipient {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 sending separate RosettaNet Exception business signals. If desired, trading partners {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 could use the SMTP Delivery Status Notification (DSN) mechanism (see RFC 1891) to {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 request that the recipient notify the sender of SMTP message delivery status. Partners{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  could also use the SMTP Message Disposition Notification (MDN) mechanism as {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 needed. These are part of the standard SMTP message delivery mechanism / {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 standard and can be used by trading partners as needed and feasible, based on their{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  SMTP set-ups. RosettaNet does not provide any explicit specification in this respect.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Should the use of DSN and MDN be specifiable as part of the SMTP protocol?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb46\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/23/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: SMTP Delivery Status Notification and Message Disposition Notification(RFC {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 1891 and RFC 2298){\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb155\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb6735\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 22 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 75{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Clarification of syncReplyMode Attribute{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Line 1171 in the 1.0 CPPA spec talks about four possible values for the {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 syncReplyMode attribute: signalsOnly, responseOnly, signalsAndResponse, and {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 none.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Line 1178 is confusing. I think it should say "the sending application expects in a {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 response" rather than "the receiving application expects in a response".{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The explanation of signalsOnly is not clear. Depending on the definition of the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 business transaction (i.e., whether there is a responding activity), the sending {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 application may still expect a business response message separately. This response {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 message in turn will trigger a business level acknowledgement that may or may not be {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 returned synchronously.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The meaning of responseOnly is also unclear. Does it mean that no business signals {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 should be sent at all or are they only to be sent separately and asynchronously? What{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  if non-repudiation of receipt is required?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 In the case of signalsAndResponse, I suppose the multiple business level messages {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 have to be packaged into a single message at the MHS level as multiple MIME body {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 parts. I don't think this point is clearly stated. Also, if the responder returns the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 business signals and business response synchronously, how is the initiator expected {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 to send its business level receipt acknowledgement? Will that have to be sent {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 asynchronously?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The RosettaNet Implementation Framework 2.0 supports synchronous response but {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 makes a number of simplifying assumptions. For a one-action PIP, the responder can {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 return a signal or not at all. For a two-action PIP, the responder can return a business {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 response but no business signal. Thus, there is no non-repudiation of receipt for the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 request action from the responder. It is also assumed that the initiator is not required {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 to return a receipt acknowledgement for the response action. Therefore, there is no {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 non-repudiation of receipt of the response action from the initiator either. In other {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 words, synchronous response mode can only be used for certain PIPs that don't {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 require response or non-repudiation of receipt.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The ebXML message is more flexible to allow signal(s) and response to be packaged {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb148\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 7/26/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: Clarification of syncReplyMode Attribute {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 See also Subject: <1.0 bug> syncReplyMode attribute values are not clearly {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 explainedA - Aug 21 2001{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb167\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb2840\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 23 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 77{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Idempotency attribute{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 This concept is not mentioned any where in the Messaging Service spec. In order to {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 implement the OnceAndOnlyOnce delivery semantics, the MSH already performs {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 duplicate detection and filtering. It is not clear how the idempotency test applied at the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 document exchange layer (described on line 1575) differs from the duplicate detection{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  and handling described in Section 10.3 in the Messaging Service spec.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Is the document exchange layer part of the MSH?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 What is the meaning of deliverySemantics=OnceAndOnlyOnce and {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb197\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 7/26/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: Idempotency attribute (Section 7.6.4.2, line 1569){\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 78{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Relationship between Acknowledgement, DeliveryReceipt,and BPSS Business Signals{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 According to the Messaging Service spec, the Acknowledgement element is an {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 optional element that is used by one MHS to indicate to another MHS that it has {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 received a message (to support the implementation of reliable messaging). The {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 DeliveryReceipt element is defined as an optional element that is used by the To Party{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  who received a message to let the From Party who sent the original message know {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb173\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 7/22/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: Relationship between Acknowledgement, DeliveryReceipt,and BPSS Business {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb3740\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 24 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 48{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Possible need for TimeAccuracy and TimeToLive{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Arvola Chan (posting of 7/15/01) reported a number of problems with the Reliable {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging definition in the Message Service Specification. Fixing some of these may {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 require coordination between the CPPA and MSG teams. For example, he questioned {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 whether TimeAccuracy and TimeToLive should be added to the CPA.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Items discussed at the July 24-25 meeting:{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·	TimeToLive is intended to be on an individual message basis; hence it is not an {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 agreement matter.  If it is necessary to specify it per message type or business {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 transaction, it may have to be specified in the Process Specification document with an {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 override in the CPA Characteristics element.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·	MSHTimerAccuracy.  This appears to be an internal matter at each party. We need {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 to discuss this with the MSG team.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb230\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 118{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Problem with Non Repudiation over a Synchronous Delivery Channel{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The CertificateRef under NonRepudiation is presumably the{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 certificate used by the sender for signing.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 What happens if syncReplyMode is set to something other{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 than None? In that case, the receiver (responder) has to{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 deliver the response document over the same channel. Where{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 is the CertificateRef for signing by the responder?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb185\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/21/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: Does CPA support SSL mutual authentication?{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb2715\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 25 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 89{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Linkage of SimplePart element to BusinessDocument at the BPSS level{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 One or more business signals, along with a business response can{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 be carried in the same ebXML message in the synchronous reply{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 mode. I suspect that each of the above has to be treated as one{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 attachment to the SOAP message with attachments.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The CPP/CPA has a Packaging element that is supposed to{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 describe the constituents of a payload and its security packaging.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 However, the SimplePart element in the CPP/A currently does not{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 seem to have any linkage to a BusinessDocument at the BPSS level{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 I think this is an alignment issue among the MSG, CPP/A, and{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 eBTWG workgroups.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb230\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/29/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: Re: "Primary Business Document"{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb7923\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 26 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 83{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Are signals meaningful in case syncReplyMode is not set to none?{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Whether response for a business process is to be returned synchronously is specified{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  in the CPA rather than in the business process specification itself. This may lead to {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 inconsistent specifications that can be rather meaningless.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Consider the case of a business process that calls for the use of both receipt {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 acknowledgement and acceptance acknowledgement for the request activity. Let's say{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  their corresponding timeouts are 5 minutes and 10 minutes, and the time to perform is{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  30 minutes. Now suppose the CPA specifies syncReplyMode = signalsAndResponse, {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 does it mean that both the signals and the response have to be returned within 5 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 minutes? If not, isn't the requesting party supposed to consider the transaction null {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 and void due to not getting the receipt acknowledgement in time?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 If the purpose of the receipt acknowledgement is to indicate that the request message {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 has passed the intelligible check, and the purpose of the acceptance {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 acknowledgement is to indicate that the request message has passed additional {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 business rules validation, there isn't much of a point to return these signals along with {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the response synchronously (being packaged into the same ebXML message). The {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 fact that the response is returned implies that both forms of validation have passed. {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Batching these signals with the response essentially make them redundant and {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 worthless.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Among RosettaNet PIPs, 2A9 (Query Electronic Components Technical Information) is {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the only one that allows both synchronous and asynchronous response. In the case of{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  synchronous response, time to perform is 5 minutes. For asynchronous response, {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 time to perform is 24 hours. It does not seem possible to model PIP 2A9 using BPSS {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 and CPP/A as a single business process specification. Only a single time to perform {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 can be specified at the BPSS level. There is no mechanism at the CPP/A level to {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 override the time to perform parameter.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 In fact, I think it will be useful if time to acknowledge receipt, time to acknowledge {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 acceptance, and time to perform for a business process specification can all be {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 overridden at the CPP/A level to suit the performance requirements between the two {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 trading partners. {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb136\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/2/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: Are signals meaningful in case syncReplyMode is not set to none?{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb3823\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 27 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 84{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ackRequested attribute in Via element (of MSH) and QOS{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 To be distilled from the cited email thread.{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/7/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 (reply to David Burdett forwarded by Marty Sachs) Subject: Re: T2: ackRequested {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 attribute in Via  element{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb155\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 87{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 RosettaNet Retry Parameter not Expressible in BPSS or CPP/A{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Existing RosettaNet PIPs do not require exactly once delivery semantics.{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Asynchronous PIPs have a Retry parameter that governs how many additional{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 retries a sender will send a message, if it has not received a Receipt{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Acknowledgement signal from the other party.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Currently, BPSS does not allow for the specification of a retry count. At{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the CPP/A level, the only available retry parameter is associated with{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 reliable messaging. It is not clear if RosettaNet should always use{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 reliable{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 messaging for all PIPs.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Ideally, the DocExchange element should carry an alternate Retry element{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 that is not tied to reliable messaging. Otherwise, it will be great fi{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 extension mechanisms whereby namespace qualified extension{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 elements/attributes can be added. This is an approach that is used both in{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 SOAP and in the Message Service to provide extensibility.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb254\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/23/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: RosettaNet Retry Parameter not Expressible in BPSS or CPP/A{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb2920\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 28 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 90{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 T2 Non repudiation and MSG, CPP/A, BPSS spec alignment{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The BPSS spec says that nonRepudiationOfReceipt (NRR) is tied to the{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ReceiptAcknowledgement signal. NRR and reliable messaging are orthogonal. A{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 business process may specify the non repudiation of receipt for the{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 requesting business activity business message and/or the repudiation of{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 receipt for the responding business activity business message, without{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 requiring that reliable messaging be used. I think the Messaging Service{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 should not tie NRR to the DeliveryReceipt element if the latter is used{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 exclusively in reliable messaging.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The MSH is not responsible for validating the syntax of payloads. NRR at the{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 MSH level does not really implement NRR as called for by the business{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 process specification. NRR at the BPSS level includes syntax validation on{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the payloads. Receipt Acknowledgement business signals have to be persisted{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 in order to satisfy legal requirements implied by NRR. I just don't see the{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 utility of persisting the DeliveryReceipt generated at the MSH level in{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 addition to the ReceiptAcknowledgement signal. This may just be unnecessary{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 overhead.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Currently, NRR parameters are tied to the DeliveryChannel element in the{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 CPP/A. According to Marty, these parameters may have to be relocated / added{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 to the ProcessSpecification and/or the Role element in order to properly{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 model the non repudiation requirements associated with the business process.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 I strongly feel that non repudation is one area that the MSG, CPP/A, and BP{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 groups must closely coordinate among themselves in their 1.1 specifications.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb308\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/30/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: T2 Non repudiation and MSG, CPP/A, BPSS spec alignment{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb5258\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 29 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 88{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Piggybacking of signals on application level messages via packaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 From response by Dale Moberg: We intended to handle the specification of the {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 agreement on how{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 piggybacking{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 was to be done via packaging. This has not yet occurred. Here are some {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 issues needing resolution on the way to getting this done:{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 1. When we have signalsAndResponse true, and syncResponse true, then the{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 packaging should describe how the signal and Response (payload) are{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 arranged{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 in a SOAP with attachments package.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 2. When we have signalsOnly, we need to be able to indicate that there{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 are{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 in effect two communication channels used in responding. The signal will{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 be returned on the requesting connection as a HTTP reply. The payload{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 (business{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 response) needs a URL to specify the endpoint that it is returned to. At{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 moment, we do not have enough apparatus available to express these{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 facts.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 In addition, two different packaging formats need to be available to{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 reflect{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the message containing the signal and the one containing the business{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 response.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb296\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/24/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: One issue pertaining to Arvola response to Marty to Hima on v1question4{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb5668\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 30 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Sachs{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 93{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Clarity of text re NRR / Delivery Channel and/or separate send delivery channel{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 NRR is expressed in the CPA by the NonRepudiation element under{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ebXMLBinding in the delivery channel.  The delivery channel describes a{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Party's receive properties.  Nonrepudiation requires action by both{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 parties.  However signing is done by the From Party.  So having it NRR in{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the delivery channel (receive properties) is a bit peculiar.  The points{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 that I don't think I made previously are these:{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1    Although NonRepudiation is in the delivery channel (receive properties),{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1    the certificate which must be referenced is for signing the message.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1    This certificate belongs to the From party, not the To party.  If we{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1    leave NonRepudiation where it is, the text must make it clear that the{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1    certificate is one belonging to the other party, not the party that owns{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1    this delivery channel.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1     Because the certificate belongs to the other party, the certificate{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1    reference is meaningless in the CPP.  The text should state that the{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1    certificate referenced in the CPP must be replaced  by a reference to{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1    the other party's certificate when the CPA is composed.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 A better solution is to provide "send" delivery channels along with the{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 "receive" delivery channels though this is probably out of scope for V1.1.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb284\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 9/6/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: Nonrepudiation of receipt in CPA{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Sachs{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 130{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Routing ambiguity when two different BPSS instance{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Details to be distilled from cited email thread.{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/12/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: RE: T2 The answer isn't always "you need a CPA"{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb2058\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 31 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Sachs{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 131{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 MSH timeout{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 … We do not define the actual timeout that the MSH uses to determine when to retry.  {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 That timeout could be longer or shorter than RetryInterval.  We also do not say {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 whether RetryInterval is measured from the sending of the message or the expiration {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 of the MSH timeout.  I recommend defining the MSH timeout and adding it to the CPA. {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb167\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/12/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: RE: T2 Clarify TimeToLive{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Sachs{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 133{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Clarify MSH, Middleware, and their relationship{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Marty wants to make sure that we distinguish between the formal definition of MSH {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 [editorial: which is not entirely clear] and related middleware. {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Dale believes a crucial issue is how much work the MSH does when generating NRR. {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 For example, invoking an XML parser extends its scope from an architectural point of {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 view. In the case of NRR for RosettaNet, MSH alone is not sufficient; cooperation of {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 another middleware component is needed -- maybe we should undertake to specify {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 division of labor in this area. Arvola observed that our specification is currently tied to {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BPSS. Marty elaborated that we have links for BPSS instance documents and roles, {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 along with a set of security attributes to override information in a BPSS instance, but {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 we say little about those attributes in terms of what functionality must be where.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 … Returning to syntax checking as part of receipt acknowledgement, it was mentioned{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  that the MSH could provide a plug in. This again raises questions about the scope of {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 MSH and division of labor among middleware components. Someone (Engkee?) asked{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  if the Interoperability committee might address such matters.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb254\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 call{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/6/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb2510\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 32 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Sachs{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 135{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Technical report on interoperability across Messaging, BPSS and CPPA specs{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 We might want to consider a technical report on interoperability across the Messaging,{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  BPSS and CPPA specifications. Dale agreed with the idea and felt that someone {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 needs to draft it, but wasn't sure who.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 call{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/6/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Moberg{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 91{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Delivery Receipt, NRR and MSG/CPPA/BPSS (mis-)alignment and thelayering {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Details to be distilled.  See the thread starting with the cited email.{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/31/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: Delivery Receipt, NRR and MSG/CPPA/BPSS (mis-)alignment and thelayering {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 mishmash (was jumbled into: reliable messaging - hop by hop){\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb155\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb5585\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 33 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Messaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Collier{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 95{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Lack of processing rules{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The TRP document addresses wire format only.  Given the complex nature of {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 composing a message that adequately reflects both security and reliability in addition {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 to the correct business process data, there is a good deal of the processing of a {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 business message through the MSH to the SOAP process that is left as an exercise for{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  the reader. While the TRP specification makes a recommendation on how signatures {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 should be applied to a Message Envelope, there are still areas of overlap between the{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  SOAP envelope and the ebXML envelope that probably need further definition.  As is {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 mentioned in Section 12.1 item 7, there is no defined line of communication to the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 MSH from the SOAP layer.   There are several areas in which the specification of the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb197\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ebXML Technical Architecture Risk {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Middleware{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 16{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Middleware interoperability{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·Upper interface of  Message Service{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·Interface between middleware and bridge to legacy applications{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·Anything else to support interoperability aspects of CPA and middleware?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·Reliable messaging delivery failure notification may be an issue that involves the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 interfaces within the middleware/{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Probably this should be joint work among CPPA, MSG, and BP teams.  Perhaps some {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 new OASIS team should be created to lead this work.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb191\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb3125\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 34 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Middleware{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 66{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  Interaction between configuration inside a Party and the CPA{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 In general, configuration matters are internal to each party and should not appear in {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the CPA. However there may be CPA implications, especially if internal configuration {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 information overrides fields in the CPA.  If that can happen, it needs to be documented{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  in the CPA specification.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb167\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Middleware{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 74{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Business Service Interface{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Business Service Interface (BSI) design may be outside our scope, but statement of {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BSI requirements may be in.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 see also email re "Suggestions from Karsten Riemenr" - June 25 ff{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb167\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Scottsdale F2F{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Middleware{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 132{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Is MSH the endpoint for Nonrepudiation of receipt?{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Marty feels there is confusion about whether or not the MSH is the endpoint for NRR {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 functionality. That impacts where NRR information belongs in a CPP/A.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb155\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 call{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/6/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb787\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 35 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Middleware{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Sachs{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 133{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Clarify MSH, Middleware, and their relationship{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Marty wants to make sure that we distinguish between the formal definition of MSH {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 [editorial: which is not entirely clear] and related middleware. {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Dale believes a crucial issue is how much work the MSH does when generating NRR. {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 For example, invoking an XML parser extends its scope from an architectural point of {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 view. In the case of NRR for RosettaNet, MSH alone is not sufficient; cooperation of {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 another middleware component is needed -- maybe we should undertake to specify {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 division of labor in this area. Arvola observed that our specification is currently tied to {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BPSS. Marty elaborated that we have links for BPSS instance documents and roles, {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 along with a set of security attributes to override information in a BPSS instance, but {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 we say little about those attributes in terms of what functionality must be where.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 … Returning to syntax checking as part of receipt acknowledgement, it was mentioned{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  that the MSH could provide a plug in. This again raises questions about the scope of {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 MSH and division of labor among middleware components. Someone (Engkee?) asked{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  if the Interoperability committee might address such matters.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb254\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 call{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/6/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Miscellaneous{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 67{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Multiparty CPAs{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Extension of the CPA to more than two parties could be considered. Some (but not all){\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  issues are:{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·	Enforceability across more than two parties.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·	Namespace scope{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·	Business signals{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·	Conversation state tracking across more than two parties: does each party need to {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 know about interactions between the others?  How can this be accomplished?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb185\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb1895\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 36 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Miscellaneous{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 70{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Include higher-level abstractions in the CPA{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 There has been a suggestion to extend the CPA to include higher level abstractions {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 like service information and contractual obligations.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb155\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Miscellaneous{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 24{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 TPA reference element{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 It has been proposed to add an optional element to the CPA that provides a reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  to an associated "traditional" contract or TPA.  This should be able to be either a text {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 string or the URI of an electronic (e.g. XML) representation of the contract or TPA. It {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 should be stated this element is for information only; its presence or absence is {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 independent of whether a contract does or does not exist.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 It will be necessary to consider the relation of this element to the isLegallyBinding {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 attribute in the Process Specification document.  (See listserver discussion June {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb191\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb4560\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 37 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Miscellaneous{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 59{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Publishing Party capabilities with a CPA template instead of a CPP{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 There was discussion on the list server Feb. 6-8 about use of CPA Templates in place{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  of CPPs. This would simplify things for a small business so that it doesn't have to go {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 through the whole CPP and composition process when all he needs to do is fill in a few{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  items in a CPA prepared large business.  The words in the spec are sufficiently {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 permissive to allow the possibility of the use of CPA Templates but one could make it {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb173\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Miscellaneous{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 53{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Ambiguity re Routing of Response Messages to the Correct Software Entry Point{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·	There appears to be an ambiguity for the following case. The ambiguity should be {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 confirmed or refuted and, if it is ambiguous, either fix the ambiguity or put in a {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 statement that this is not a valid case. The case boils down to the same party playing {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 both roles in the same business transaction.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ¨	Each Party to the CPA includes two CollaborationRole elements that point to the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 same Process-specification document.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 §	In one CollaborationRole element, Party A has the role "seller" (for example) and {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Party B has the role "buyer".{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 §	In the other CollaborationRole element, Party B has the role "seller" and party A {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 has the role "buyer".{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ¨	The same combination of binary collaboration and business transaction is {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 performed in both of the above cases (i.e. the two Parties can switch roles).{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ¨	Both CollaborationRole elements specify delivery channels with the same transport {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 address (e.g. URL).{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ¨	The message service cannot tell whether an arriving message is a request or a {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 response message. It can only route based on transport address, service, action, and {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 role. If the same delivery channel (same transport address) is used with both {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 CollaborationRole elements, the messaging service cannot tell whether to route the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 message to Party A as "seller" (the first CollaborationRole element) or to Party B as {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 "seller" (the second CollaborationRole element).{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ¨	Use of ConversationId and CPAId in routing may resolve the ambiguity. In addition, {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 we could make use of the RefToMessageId element in the message header as part of {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the routing information.  See the "RefToMessageId" below.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb76\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb1075\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 38 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Miscellaneous{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 127{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Specializations of generic business messages for specific partners{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The schema of a business document may contain certain optional fields.{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 However, two trading partners may specifically require some of these{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 optional fields be always present in their exhanged messages. Should this be{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 specifiable through the CPP/A?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb167\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/23/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: Potential 2.0 requirement{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Miscellaneous{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Weida{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 121{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Business rules and constraints{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Capture business constraints and rules that specify context-dependent validation of a {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 B2BI system's runtime behavior (for both profiles and agreements).  See cited {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 reference for more details.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Scottsdale F2F{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-cppa/meetings/business_rules_and_const{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 raints.ppt{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb155\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Negotiation{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 12{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Negotiation of CPA contents{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The negotiation team is currently elaborating on this general issue.  Marty Sachs {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 suggested that we defer inclusion of specific negotiation issues in this database for {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb155\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb829\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 39 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Negotiation{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 13{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Negotiation of Business-level parameters{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 This issue is a general placeholder to be elaborated on some time in the future.{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Negotiation{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 57{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 PartyId type{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  It has been suggested that a negotiation of PartyId type may be desirable since a {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 given Party may not be capable of interpreting all possible PartyId types.  One {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 possibility is to add an element by which a Party can indicate which PartyId types it {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Packaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 5{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Packaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Improvements to packaging definition including security capabilities. Specific problems {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 related to XMLDSIG have been noted (Dale Moberg 5/3/01){\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 See also email re: S/MIME, Dale Moberg, August 16, 2001 ff{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb167\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb1155\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 40 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Packaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 36{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Virtual Packaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Enhance notation to capture the "virtual packaging" used by XMLDsig external {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'CPA-CPP Changes to Consider' document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Packaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 89{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Linkage of SimplePart element to BusinessDocument at the BPSS level{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 One or more business signals, along with a business response can{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 be carried in the same ebXML message in the synchronous reply{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 mode. I suspect that each of the above has to be treated as one{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 attachment to the SOAP message with attachments.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The CPP/CPA has a Packaging element that is supposed to{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 describe the constituents of a payload and its security packaging.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 However, the SimplePart element in the CPP/A currently does not{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 seem to have any linkage to a BusinessDocument at the BPSS level{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 I think this is an alignment issue among the MSG, CPP/A, and{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 eBTWG workgroups.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb230\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/29/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: Re: "Primary Business Document"{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb3903\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 41 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Packaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Moberg{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 35{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Grammars for packaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Investigate using "grammars" to provide more compact means of expressing {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 packaging parsing and generative capabilities.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb155\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'CPA-CPP Changes to Consider' document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 3{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security policy element{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 We should consider a Security policy element.{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 10{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security attributes under Characteristics element{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Define security attributes under the Characteristics element in enough detail to {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 understand what has to be specified in doc exchange and transport to support them {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 and enable a tool to check for consistency between Characteristics and the details in {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb1565\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 42 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 58{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Digests of Other External Documents{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 If other external documents, such as security profiles, are introduced, the possibility of {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 creating digests of those document, similar to what is specified for the Process {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Specification document should be considered in order to detect alterations.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 1{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Technical Architecture Risk Assessment{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Technical Architecture Risk Assessment technical report recommendations related to {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 CPP/CPA.  (Note:  some items below may duplicate material in that report.){\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb155\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 http://www.ebxml.org/specs/ebTA.pdf{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb5585\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 43 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 2{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security profile{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security profile developed by the ebXML security team.  From the Technical {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Architecture Risk Assessment technical report:{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 This element would advertise the set of security mechanisms a party understands, the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 profiles for those mechanisms, and the trust anchors that will be issuing the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 credentials used within that policy.  The policies can be asymmetric, allowing separate {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 identification of what it can accept from what it will, itself, generate. For example, a {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 party might accept SSL-protected messages, but will itself, only generate [XMLDSIG] {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb191\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 9{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Certificates{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Replace ds:keyinfo element by a definition that does not embed the actual ceritficate {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 in the CPP or CPA.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 From Security Issues 01-08-26.doc (via Tim Collier): Depending on how it is used, the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ds:keyinfo element can contain an actual base-64-encoded certificate. Except for {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 signing of the CPP or CPA, there is no need for actual certificates to be embedded in {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the CPP or CPA. The Certificate element should be changed to point to information at {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 a key-management service instead.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb191\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb3330\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 44 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Signing of payload and header{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Signing of payload and header vs. signing only of payload and response.{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 7{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Nonrepudiation of receipt{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Specification of nonrepudiation of receipt.{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 6{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 NonRepudiation element improvements{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Nonrepudiation improvements including possible addition of other elements that reflect{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  choices that can be made (Transform?). A possibility is that this element could take {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the form of a Signature "template" which effectively provides the entire requisite {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 binding information including reference URI(s) with only the Digest and actual {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 signature omitted. This would be similar to the way we now define the signature.  See {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb173\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb1318\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 45 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 5{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Packaging{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Improvements to packaging definition including security capabilities. Specific problems {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 related to XMLDSIG have been noted (Dale Moberg 5/3/01){\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 See also email re: S/MIME, Dale Moberg, August 16, 2001 ff{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb167\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 4{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Public-Key Infrastructure{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Public-Key Infrastructure issues.{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 11{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Third-party security services{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Use of third-party security services (this is a special case of an intermediary).{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb1523\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 46 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 40{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 BPSS isNonrepudiationRequired attribute and CPPA Nonrepudiation element{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The BPSS defines this attribute as requiring the message sender to save an audit {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 trail. It has no signing semantics. The isTamperProof attribute controls signing of the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 business document. isTamperProof may be needed in the CPP-CPA Characteristics {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 element.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The CPP-CPA Nonrepudiation element is defined as covering signing and "prevents {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 later nonrepudiation".  Perhaps the definition should be expanded to explicitly cover {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb185\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 41{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Nonrepudiation of business signals{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Does the CPP-CPA need definitions in the delivery channel, in addition to listing the {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 attributes in the Characteristics element, that support nonrepudiation of origin and {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb155\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb4765\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 47 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 118{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Problem with Non Repudiation over a Synchronous Delivery Channel{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The CertificateRef under NonRepudiation is presumably the{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 certificate used by the sender for signing.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 What happens if syncReplyMode is set to something other{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 than None? In that case, the receiver (responder) has to{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 deliver the response document over the same channel. Where{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 is the CertificateRef for signing by the responder?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb185\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/21/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: Does CPA support SSL mutual authentication?{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 113{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Clarification of NamespaceSupported element advertising in CPP{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 From response by Dale M.  on 20 Aug 2001: . .. because adding namespaces is one {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 way that XML infosets are extended, interoperability can be expected to involve {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 support for namespaces that are used, either in the header or in the payload. Is this {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 obscure? We can certainly add some more text to clarify that the point of a CPP is to {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 advertise capabilities with the view of promoting interoperability.  …{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 From Tim C.'s Security Issues 01-08-26.doc: Yes. Perhaps an example omitting {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 XMLDsig and using SMIME encryption would have been more useful. In addition, when{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  a namespace URI for XML encryption emerges, we can add that to the list if it is to be {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 used even though it is not a part of MS{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 G spec now. Finally, the constituent specs are to be modular and possibly {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 independent. What is required by MSG is not necessarily required by CPPA. So what {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 can be a default because it is part of MSG would be OK if we agree to make all {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 features of MSG the default for CPPA. That has not been proposed as yet, and it may {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 tend to conflict with the intent to have each spec remain modular and independent.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb248\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: What is the purpose of the NamespaceSupported element?{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb2100\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 48 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 124{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Possible addition of CipherSuites element under TransportSecurity{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Section B.2.7 in the Message Service spec states:{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ebXML Message Service Handlers MAY use any of the allowable encryption algorithms{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  and key sizes specified within [RFC2246]. At a minimum ebXML Message Service {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Handlers MUST support the key sizes and algorithms necessary for backward {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 compatibility with [SSL3].The following cipher suites are defined in [RFC2246]: [ … see{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  cited email for complete list … ]{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Do we have to add a CipherSuites element to the TransportSecurity element to {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 indicate the cipher suites that are supported by the destination party?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 [See cited email for detailed list of suites]{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb10\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/23/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: Encryption Algorithms and Key Sizes for Transport Level Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb8128\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 49 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 117{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Clarify and detail support of SSL mutual authentication{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  took a look at the Communication Protocol Bindings section (Appendix B) in{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the Message Service Spec. Lines 2843 to 2845  state:{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 "Both [RFC2246] and [SSL3] require the use of server side digital{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 certificates. In addition client side certificate based authentication is{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 also permitted. ebXML Message Service handlers MUST support  hierarchical{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 and peer-to-peer trust models."{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Therefore, I think the CPP/A 1.1 spec needs to be fixed to support mutual{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 authentication.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 In addition, lines 2823 to 2828 in the Message Service spec state:{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 "Implementers MAY protect their ebXML Message Service Handlers from{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 unauthorized access through the use of an access control mechanism. The HTTP{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 access authentication process described in "HTTP Authentication: Basic and{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Digest Access Authentication" [RFC2617] defines the access control{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 mechanisms allowed to protect an ebXM L Message Service Handler from{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 unauthorized access. Implementers MAY support all of the access control{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 schemes defined in [RFC2617] however they MUST support the Basic{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Authentication mechanism, as described in section 2, when Access Control is{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 used."{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 More changes to the CPP/A spec will be necessary to support Basic{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Authentication. However, I seriously doubt if basic authentication which{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 sends user name and password in cleartext is suitable for conducting E{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 business transactions. Perhaps we should lobby the MSG TC to remove the{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 requirement to support basic authentication in the 1.1 spec.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb326\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/21/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 See separate email threads started by Arvola Chan on 21 Aug 2001 regarding "Does {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 CPA support SSL mutual authentication?" and on 23 Aug 2001 "Re: SSL Mutual {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Authentication and the Message Service Spec".  Also thread by Dale Moberg re {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 "Transport related authentication in CPA (was SSL Mutual Authenticationand the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb167\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb4070\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 50 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 90{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 T2 Non repudiation and MSG, CPP/A, BPSS spec alignment{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The BPSS spec says that nonRepudiationOfReceipt (NRR) is tied to the{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ReceiptAcknowledgement signal. NRR and reliable messaging are orthogonal. A{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 business process may specify the non repudiation of receipt for the{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 requesting business activity business message and/or the repudiation of{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 receipt for the responding business activity business message, without{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 requiring that reliable messaging be used. I think the Messaging Service{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 should not tie NRR to the DeliveryReceipt element if the latter is used{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 exclusively in reliable messaging.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The MSH is not responsible for validating the syntax of payloads. NRR at the{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 MSH level does not really implement NRR as called for by the business{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 process specification. NRR at the BPSS level includes syntax validation on{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the payloads. Receipt Acknowledgement business signals have to be persisted{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 in order to satisfy legal requirements implied by NRR. I just don't see the{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 utility of persisting the DeliveryReceipt generated at the MSH level in{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 addition to the ReceiptAcknowledgement signal. This may just be unnecessary{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 overhead.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Currently, NRR parameters are tied to the DeliveryChannel element in the{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 CPP/A. According to Marty, these parameters may have to be relocated / added{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 to the ProcessSpecification and/or the Role element in order to properly{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 model the non repudiation requirements associated with the business process.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 I strongly feel that non repudation is one area that the MSG, CPP/A, and BP{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 groups must closely coordinate among themselves in their 1.1 specifications.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb308\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/30/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: T2 Non repudiation and MSG, CPP/A, BPSS spec alignment{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb5258\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 51 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 123{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Indicate use of  basic authentication{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Request from Arvola Chan, with the following response from Dale Moberg: OK, I could {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 see that we could add a detail{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 under TransportSecurity element, even if MSG decides to{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 drop discussion of any HTTP auth. mechanism.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Is there a standardized way of referring to{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 different HTTP auth mechanisms that we could reuse{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 (like a URI, OID or whatever...)?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb185\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/28/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: Re: SSL Mutual Authentication and the Message Service Spec{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 104{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Nonrepudiation archival{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Don't non repudiation of origin and non repudiation of receipt imply that the recipient {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 has to keep a persistent copy of the message for some rather long period of time {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 (typically of the order of years)?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Is this duration implicit (i.e., has the same value for all cases) or should it be {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 represented explicitly in the CPA?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Another related question is whether the logging functionality to support non {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 repudiation belongs above or below the Message Service Interface.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb197\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/16/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: Non Repudiation{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb3330\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 52 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Mukkamala{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 29{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Signed delivery receipt{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Hima,{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 I have added a comments to the first question below.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 We can follow up tomorrow if time permits.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Dale{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Hima wrote:{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 "1) How could you request a Delivery Receipt signed/unsigned{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 using CPA as the governing document for messaging"{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 DWM>>{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 I assume we are talking about Delivery Receipts within the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ebxml Oasis MSG specification, and not any other flavor.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The MSG spec now has both Acknowledg(e)ments (primarily used{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 for support of RM) and Delivery Receipts, which are apparently{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 classified as business level messages.(!) Moreover, the Delivery{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Receipts appear to be quite similar to Acknowledgements, and{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Acknowledgements can include a Reference and hash of the original{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 message. I hope that usage and distinctions pertaining to {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 all these "signals" or messages{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 can be one item we get clear on {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 at the joint meeting.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 I believe that in v1.0, some information about Delivery Receipts{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 is found under the ../DocExchange/ebXMLBinding/nonRepudiation path,{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 when the CollaborationRole is for the Response side of a conversation.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Other information is under{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ../DeliveryChannel/Characteristics/[@='nonRepudiationOfReceipt'],{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 a boolean that tells us that the conversation is making use of{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 nonRepudiationOfReceipt{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 and with ebXML bindings, which means to do it "the" MSG way, {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 we know we need to return a Delivery Receipt, I think. {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Now, since there is an Ack. with some receipt like characteristics{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 and a DeliveryReceipt with receipt like characteristics, which is to{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 be used. I think this is one thing we have to straighten out. We might{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 disambiguate by means of something in Packaging that indicates whether{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the SOAP Header is an Ack or DR. Anyway, I think we need to nail this{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 down by 1.1. There was a lot of seemingly minor adjustments in MSG {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 at the 1.0 level and I am not certain that we tracked them all. {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 We also need to investigate whether to remove the scope barriers to{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 capturing interop info about signals. And how to indicate MSH to MSH{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 layer traffic and how to indicate APP to APP traffic...{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 3	SOAP-SEC extensions and signatures in ebXML messages{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Given that an ebXML message is carried within a SOAP message, there are currently {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 two ways of signing messages. This may cause some confusion or runtime failures {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 due to misinterpretation. There has been a note posted to the W3C, which identifies {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 one possible set of processing instructions for signing SOAP messages.  Below are {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 some "similarities and differences" that may help people wade through the notations. {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 In addition, there is a good reminder in the concluding section of the XMLDSIG note {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 about digital signature not itself preventing replay attacks. The "no-dupes" of reliable {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 messaging can be used to address this type of attack.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 1.	SOAP-SEC[SOAP-SEC] uses its own namespace and has a schema that wraps {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 around the XMLDSIG namespace, unlike the ebXML example.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 2.	SOAP-SEC and ebXML Digital Signatures both have the signature under the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 SOAP-ENV:Header.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb300\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 53 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb1860\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 3.	The SOAP-SEC schema allows just one signature{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 4.	SOAP-SEC uses the SOAP-ENV:actor and SOAP-ENV:mustUnderstand elements, {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 whereas the ebXML example does not.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 5.	The actual W3C XMLDSIG machinery is shared. Of course, the ebXML example {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 illustrates using an XPATH transform to cut out the TraceHeaderList (though the S1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 value for the id attribute doesn't point to anything in the ebxml example){\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 6.	The ebXML-Sig Reference [ebMS] mechanism uses cid: style URIs, but these are {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 also acceptable in SOAP-SEC (section 3.2).{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 7.	SOAP-SEC uses the soap protocol conventions of the mustUnderstand and actor {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tqr\tx1440\tx1560\tx1650{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 constructs. It is not certain whether this is an advantage or just overhead. It might be a\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs23\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  disadvantage if SOAP processing and ebXML MSH processing are "walled-off". In that{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tqr\tx1440\tx1560\tx1650{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  case, no defined lines of communication to the MSH from the SOAP layer exist so that\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/22/2001{\fs25\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  MSH won't have access to the outcomes of checking. In general, it is difficult to {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tqr\tx1440\tx1560\tx1650{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 assess the impact on implementations, but using SOAP-SEC within ebXML would tend \plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: 1.0 Questions{\fs27\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 to promote writing a SOAP processing layer as part of the MSH to facilitate {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 communication.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Sachs{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 93{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Clarity of text re NRR / Delivery Channel and/or separate send delivery channel{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 NRR is expressed in the CPA by the NonRepudiation element under{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ebXMLBinding in the delivery channel.  The delivery channel describes a{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Party's receive properties.  Nonrepudiation requires action by both{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 parties.  However signing is done by the From Party.  So having it NRR in{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the delivery channel (receive properties) is a bit peculiar.  The points{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 that I don't think I made previously are these:{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1    Although NonRepudiation is in the delivery channel (receive properties),{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1    the certificate which must be referenced is for signing the message.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1    This certificate belongs to the From party, not the To party.  If we{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1    leave NonRepudiation where it is, the text must make it clear that the{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1    certificate is one belonging to the other party, not the party that owns{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1    this delivery channel.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1     Because the certificate belongs to the other party, the certificate{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1    reference is meaningless in the CPP.  The text should state that the{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1    certificate referenced in the CPP must be replaced  by a reference to{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1    the other party's certificate when the CPA is composed.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 A better solution is to provide "send" delivery channels along with the{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 "receive" delivery channels though this is probably out of scope for V1.1.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb284\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 9/6/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: Nonrepudiation of receipt in CPA{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb681\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 54 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Moberg{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 91{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Delivery Receipt, NRR and MSG/CPPA/BPSS (mis-)alignment and thelayering {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Details to be distilled.  See the thread starting with the cited email.{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/31/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: Delivery Receipt, NRR and MSG/CPPA/BPSS (mis-)alignment and thelayering {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 mishmash (was jumbled into: reliable messaging - hop by hop){\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb155\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Moberg{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 122{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Generalized credential container{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Possibly we could use an xlink/xpointer/URI to within the CPA to reference a {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 generalized credential container if there is a need to establish links between CPAs and{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  credentials. (This credential container would be something like the pkcs12 container {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 used for keypairs; I haven't yet encountered an XML credential store container format {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb167\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/28/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: RE: SSL Mutual Authentication and the Message Service Spec{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Collier{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 96{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Key Management{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Key management is a major issue that needs to be addressed with respect to the {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 capabilities of the TR& P Message Service Handler. In particular, if the MSH will be {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 called upon to apply digital signatures, the appropriate private keys must be available {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 to the MSH. Private keys must be managed very carefully and deliberately. Thus, {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 some configuration will be necessary to establish the key management mechanisms to{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb173\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ebXML Technical Architecture Risk {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb582\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 55 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Collier{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 103{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 non-repudiation of receipt (NRR) at the message level{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 [TW: I'm keeping this discussion  intact for now to aid clarity; when the constituent {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 issues are actively addressed, they should be split out as suggested below] {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Note	This discussion focuses on message level NRR. Application level responses are{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  out of the scope of this discussion.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 From a top level (business level) perspective, the most important issue is to determine{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  exactly what parts of the message are subject to NRR. For example, should NRR be {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 applied to the payload items and/or the header? One suggested solution would be to {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 apply NRR to only those parts of the message that were signed by the originator.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Another issue concerns how the NRR response should be sent back to the message {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 originator. Should the message be sent back as part of another ebXML message, or {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 should a separate mechanism be used (such as AS1 and/or AS2)?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The third and final issue is determining what format the NRR response should take. If it{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  is chosen to use an externally defined transport and format such as AS1 or AS2, then{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  this decision is already made. If, however, ebXML is the chosen transport, it needs to {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 be decided where the NRR response should reside (in the SOAP header, or body, {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 etc.). Additionally, the content of the NRR needs to be decided. It has been proposed {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 within the TRP group that a NRR response should simply be the acknowledgements {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 element which has been signed, but that neglects to include a hash of the parts of the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 original document for which the NRR is being generated. At a minimum, the hash of {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the original message parts and a reference to those parts (such as the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 acknowledgements element) must be signed to supply NRR. As part of the format {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 used, there much be a decision made about what algorithms and transformations will {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 be used to sign the NRR response.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Once all of those issues have been decided, there must be some mechanism within {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb82\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ebXML Technical Architecture Risk {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb5668\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 56 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Collier{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 102{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Nonrepudiation in the delivery channel vs. the certificate in the role tag.{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Discussion is needed on the function of nonrepudiation in the delivery channel vs. the {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 certificate in the role tag. Chris Ferris' comment on this:{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 I for one believe that it is only useful when signing both header and{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 payload together. Of course, there has also been discussion that the{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 only meaningful NR signature is that where the "application" signs the{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 payload (or header and payload) and the ack. This needs more scrutiny{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 [TW: Tim included this from Marty's "CPPA Changes to Consider" document.  Should {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 possibly combine this with "NonRepudation Tags" issue]{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb203\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security Issues 01-08-26.doc{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Collier{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 100{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Use of Schema: Application to individual elements{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 In the current version of the CPP/CPA, the specification of security elements is limited. {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  It is recommended that XML schema be considered to more effectively express {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 security attributes.  For example, the security characteristic is a single element that {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 contains attributes with Boolean values indicating whether or not a security attribute {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 has been addressed.  It would be useful to have the security characteristics have a {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 type and be able to have a reference id to include on lower elements (like the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 transport element), which contain the details like the protocol.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb185\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ebXML Technical Architecture Risk {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb3125\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 57 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Collier{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 34{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Policy conditionals for security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Can we provide a way to determine the appropriate policy to use based on some {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 expressible condition.  Like,  if the value of the purchase order is over $15,000 then {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 use a digital signature of type “manager”.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security Issues 01-08-26.doc{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb9768\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 58 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Collier{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 31{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Trust anchor{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 This document proposes that a trust anchor element be created within the CPP and {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 that it be represented as an XML Digital Signature [XMLDSIG] KeyInfo element. It is an {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 endpoint for a set of credentials used by the party. It is important to recognize that a {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 single policy will probably have multiple anchors. For example, a small enterprise might{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  have an SSL certificate from a DNS registrar, yet use PGP [PGP] keys signed by a {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 particular staff member for all purchasing agents.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1

{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 elements. -->{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ...{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ...{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ...{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 <-- A set of profiles the party will use. -->{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 pf1{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 <-- A set of profiles the party will accept. -->{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 pf1{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1

{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb332\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ebXML Technical Architecture Risk {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb4438\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 59 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Collier{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 97{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Encouragement of selected protocols{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 In order to encourage maximum interoperability, the following standard mechanisms {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 are identified and vendors are encouraged to implement them:{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·	When exchanging identity information, use X.509v3 Certificates that follow the IETF {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 profile (RFC2459 and its successors). [PKIX]{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·	When symmetric-key encryption is needed, use  3DES or the AES.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·	When asymmetric encryption is needed, use RSA encryption with the OAEP {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 encryption scheme and a key size of 1024 or 2048 bits.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ·	When hashing (or digesting) is needed, use SHA-1.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 When transport-level security is required, use SSLv3 or TLS with RSA keys and the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 RC4 (or ARC4) stream cipher.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb203\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ebXML Technical Architecture Risk {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Collier{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 79{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 NonRepudiation tags{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 If two parties agree on complimentary roles within a process{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 specification, and agree on the document properties (in particular signing){\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 don't the nonrepudiation elements in the delivery channel characteristics{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 become superfluous?  After all, the parties have agreed on a process{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 specification that includes acknowledgement of receipt, and they have agreed{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 on which documents have signatures attached (in the document exchange).  To{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 me NRR sounds like a requirement on the BP, and NRO is a document{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 requirement for digital signature.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 	I have heard that the delivery channel is an implementation{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 convenience, which is ok, but it seems even for that the authenticated tag{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 covers the digital signature requirement. And the implementation already is{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 monitoring the runtime process according to the BPSS.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 	Do you think the nonrepudiation tags in the delivery channel express{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 unique requirements that are not already covered?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb242\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 7/31/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: Security - question about nonrepudiation{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb1690\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 60 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Collier{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 94{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Signature Method Element{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 In the 1.0 CPPA spec (lines 3116 to 3118), we have the following declarations:{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1  {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1

{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 On the other hand, the April 19, 2001 W3C Candidate Recommendation of {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 XML-Signature shows:{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 This means that the SignatureMethod element in XML-Signature may have an optional{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 HMACOutputLength sub-element plus 0 or more wildcard elements from other {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 namespaces. Shouldn't SignatureAlgorithm be defined in the CPPA spec accordingly?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Likewise, I think it may be useful to allow wildcard attributes/sub-elements in the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 declaration of HashFunction and EncryptionAlgorithm to provide for the specification {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 of properties like encryption strength.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 In addition, the following sentence on lines 874-876 does not seem to make sense:{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 "As an alternative to the string value of the ds:DigestMethod, shown in the above {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 example, the child element, ds:HMACOutputLength, with a string value, MAY be used."{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 It does not correspond to the example on lines 811-814 (which in itself seems {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 erroneous, the HMACOutputLength should be a number, not a string) or to the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 schema definition of ds:DigestMethod in XML-Signature:{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 According to the above definition, any sub-element under DigestMethod would have to{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 come from some other namespace!{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb33\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security Issues 01-08-26.doc{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb543\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 61 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Collier{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 28{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Nonrepudiation of message parts{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The move to using an underlying SOAP message envelope may require the {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 restructuring of the current CPP definition of the “nonrepudiation” element and its sub {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 elements. The current tag specifies a protocol and hash algorithm but does not {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 adequately express how this can be applied to an ebXML message (either parts or the{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 complete message) to provide evidence that the receiver has adequately verified the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 receipt of a signed message and replied with a receipt acknowledging the same hash {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb179\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ebXML Technical Architecture Risk {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb9153\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 62 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Collier{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 30{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 SOAP-SEC extensions and signatures in ebXML messages{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Given that an ebXML message is carried within a SOAP message, there are currently {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 two ways of signing messages. This may cause some confusion or runtime failures {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 due to misinterpretation. There has been a note posted to the W3C, which identifies {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 one possible set of processing instructions for signing SOAP messages. Below are {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 some "similarities and differences" that may help people wade through the notations. {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 In addition, there is a good reminder in the concluding section of the XMLDSIG note {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 about digital signature not itself preventing replay attacks. The "no-dupes" of reliable {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 messaging can be used to address this type of attack.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 1. SOAP-SEC[SOAP-SEC] uses its own namespace and has a schema that wraps {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 around the XMLDSIG namespace, unlike the ebXML example.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 2. SOAP-SEC and ebXML Digital Signatures both have the signature under the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 SOAP-ENV:Header.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 3. The SOAP-SEC schema allows just one signature{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 4. SOAP-SEC uses the SOAP-ENV:actor and SOAP-ENV:mustUnderstand elements, {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 whereas the ebXML example does not.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 5. The actual W3C XMLDSIG machinery is shared. Of course, the ebXML example {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 illustrates using an XPATH transform to cut out the TraceHeaderList (though the S1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 value for the id attribute doesn't point to anything in the ebxml example){\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 6. The ebXML-Sig Reference [ebMS] mechanism uses cid: style URIs, but these are {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 also acceptable in SOAP-SEC (section 3.2).{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 SOAP-SEC uses the soap protocol conventions of the mustUnderstand and actor {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 constructs. It is not certain whether this is an advantage or just overhead. It might be a{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 disadvantage if SOAP processing and ebXML MSH processing are "walled-off". In that{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 case, no defined lines of communication to the MSH from the SOAP layer exist so that{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 MSH won't have access to the outcomes of checking. In general, it is difficult to {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 assess the impact on implementations, but using SOAP-SEC within ebXML would tend {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 to promote writing a SOAP processing layer as part of the MSH to facilitate {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 communication.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb106\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ebXML Technical Architecture Risk {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb4848\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 63 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Collier{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 33{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Minimum requirement for security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 It is currently assumed that the collaboration agreement (CPA) reached between two {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Trading Partners adequately reflects the ordering and priority of security policies {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 stated in the CPP, but there is no mechanism for establishing minimum security {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 requirements. The current CPP DTD does not allow the tagging of security {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 configuration at a level that indicates what is required, what is optional, or what is {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb173\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ebXML Technical Architecture Risk {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Collier{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 32{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Public key policies{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 See example from Appendix C: Sample Certificate Policy Element{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ebXML Technical Architecture Risk {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Collier{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 99{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Signing Message Parts{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 To address the secure packaging part of the Transport Routing & Packaging {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 configuration in the CPP, the CPP should also document the packaging of the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 message header, payload and attachments so that S/MIME or XMLDSIG can be used {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 to protect the appropriate elements of the message. If the packaging is well defined, it{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 will allow the security tags within the CPP to specify the appropriate certificate data {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 (X.509, PGP, etc.) to be applied to securely sign/encrypt the elements of the Message.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb179\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ebXML Technical Architecture Risk {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb335\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 64 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Clark{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 129{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Non-PKI security{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Jamie pointed out that the PKI and Certificate Authority (CA) approach is not the only {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 way; that peer-to-peer and PGP are also good; we may not want to marry ourselves to{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 PKI.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Marty mentioned that version 1.0 stops at the point of identifying the certificate and {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb173\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Scottsdale F2F{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Specification document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 64{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Title of XSD Appendix{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The title of Appendix D should be "W3C XML Schema Document" or "XSD Schema {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Document instead of "XML Schema Document". Note that the title of the schema {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 specification is "XML Schema". (Sun submitted these quality-review comments after {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the version-1 specification was published.){\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb167\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb4765\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 65 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Specification document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 71{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Figures in version 1.0 specification{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The figures should be redrawn with Word's own drawing tool. This may allow better {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 control over the positioning of the figures than is true with the current figures imported {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 from PowerPoint. The positions of the current figures are notoriously unstable with {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 respect to nearby text changes.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 During the July 24-25 meeting, it was suggested that unchecking "move object with {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 text" would freeze the position of the figure and eliminate the instability.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Redrawing the figures with the Word drawing tool should also allow automatically {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 numbered captions to be used instead of the captions currently drawn within the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb203\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Specification document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 72{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Definitions of terms (post Vienna){\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 If the post-Vienna disposition of the ebXML specifications renders global documents, {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 such as the ebXML glossary, inoperative, the definitions of terms should be restored {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 to the CPA-CPP specification. The definitions in the TP Requirements document are a{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 starting point but this list will have to be updated.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb167\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb3740\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 66 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Specification document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 107{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Inconsistent spelling of uriReference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 It is "anyURI" now in any event;-){\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Cheers,{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chris{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 > Arvola Chan wrote:{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 > {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 > The example on lines 650 and 651 (section 7.5.1) uses uriReference. This is {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 consistent with all{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 > other examples with the exception of the one on line 694 (section 7.5.2.3) which {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 uses{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 > uri-reference.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 > {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 > -Arvola{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 >{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb34\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/17/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 (reply by Chris Ferris) Subject: Re: <1.0 bug> Inconsistent spelling of uriReference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Specification document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 105{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Non Meaningful Example of a Packaging element{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Lines 1712 to 1733 in section 7.7 contains an example of the Packaging element. The {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 example is not meaningful because the attributes are not given meaningful values. In {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 particular, the mimetype attribute in the Composite element has the value "type". This {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 is not consistent with the statement on line 1792 that "this will be some MIME {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 composite type, such as "multipart/related" or "multipart/signed". The mimetype "type" {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 is also not a meaningful illustration of the Encapsulation element.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 I recommend substituting this example with the example on lines 1058-1074 from {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 http://www.ebxml.org/specs/secRISK.pdf{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb197\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/16/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: Non Meaningful Example of a Packaging element{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb1690\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 67 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Specification document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 125{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Spelling of NonRepudiation element{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The spelling for the NonRepudiation element is not consistent with{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the spellings for the nonrepudiationOfOrigin and nonrepudiationOfReceipt{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 attributes.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 I recommend that the latter be changed to{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 nonRepudiationOfOrigin and nonRepudiationOfReceipt.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb179\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/23/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: Minor spelling inconsistency{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Specification document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 109{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Appendix D is out of date{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Appendix D needs to be replaced with the contents of cpp-cpa-v1_0.xsd and including {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the bug fixes I have reported in an earlier post.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The default namespace has to be set to http://www.w3c.org/2000/10/XMLSchema. {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Otherwise, the element names like Element and Attribute would have to be qualified {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 with the above namespace.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The clause xmlns = "http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema" is present in {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 cpp-cpa-v1_0.xsd but is missing from Appendix D.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb197\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/17/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: <1.0 bug> Appendix D is out of date{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb3535\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 68 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Specification document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 76{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Minor inconsistency in Section 8 of the CPPA spec{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Section 8.1 shows an example CPA while Section 8.2 describes the element structure. {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The Packaging and Comment elements shown in Section 8.1 are missing from Section{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8.2.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 To be consistent, Section 8.2 should mention the Packaging and Comment elements {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 and there should be a sub-section on Packaging added to Section 8. There already is {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb179\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 7/26/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: Minor inconsistency in Section 8 of the CPPA spec{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Specification document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 110{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Appendix D: Retries, RetryInterval, and PersistDuration{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 In order to conform to the W3C Recommended version of XMLSchema, the{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 following changes should be made to Appendix D:{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 - Retries should be of type integer, not string.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 - RetryInterval should be of type Duration, not string.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 - PersistDuration should be of type Duration, not timeDuration.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 In addition, the example in section 7.6.4 should be changed accordingly:{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 - The RetryInterval example should not assume the unit is second.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 - The PersistDuration example should look like PT30S. (The P designator{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 must always be present; the T designator must be present if any time item{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 is present.){\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb254\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/20/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: <1.0 bug> Retries, RetryInterval, and PersistDuration{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb2100\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 69 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Specification document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 112{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 All examples that refer to tp:version="0.98b" should be updated.{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Issue says it all.{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/20/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: <1.0 bug> References to tp:version 0.98b{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Specification document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 106{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Incorrect cross-reference to BPSS element{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Line 952 contains an incorrect reference to the business-partner-role element.{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 · name attribute of the business-partner-role element. 952{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 It should be BusinessPartnerRole.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb173\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/17/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: <1.0 bug> Incorrect cross-reference to BPSS element{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Specification document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Sachs{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 92{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Dependency on ebXML Requirements spec.{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 I suggest not referring to the ebXML Requirements Specification. It is not{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 clear to me that ebRS will continue to be updated by a global requirements{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 team or that the individual new teams will keep it updated in another way.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Important requirements-type matters should be spelled out in the MSG{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 specification.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb173\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 9/2/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: ebXML Requirements spec.{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb540\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 70 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Specification document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Wang{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 82{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 SimplePart and NamespaceSupported elements{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Section 7.7.3 SimplePart element should probabaly be numbered as 7.7.2.1 and its {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 title should be "NamespaceSupported element". (Section 7.7.2 already discusses {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 SimplePart element.){\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 NamespaceSupported should in this context be a child of SimplePart, and this should {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb173\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/2/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 (forwarded by Arvola Chan) Subject: Fw: renumber and retitle of section 7.7.3{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Tools{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 21{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Consistency of timeouts and installation tools{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The CPP-CPA-BPSS installation tools will have to check the consistency of the relative{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 values of the timeouts at the three levels (business signals, business transaction, and{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 binary collaboration. Some rules are already present in the BPSS spec.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb4970\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 71 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Tools{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 14{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 CPP and CPA tools{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 This topic consists of non-normative discussion of the CPP and CPA tools as an {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 addition to the CPA-composition discussion in appendix F of the Ver. 1.0 CPP-CPA {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 specification. Tools include CPP composition tool, CPA composition tool and CPA {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 installation tool.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The result of this work might be a technical report. This might also be viewed as part {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb179\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Tools{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 52{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Clarity re Routing of Response Messages to the Correct Software Entry Point{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The specification should be reviewed for clarity in the definitions that determine how to{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 route a reply message to the correct software entry point at the recipient of the reply {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 message. Can the installation tools handle these definitions? In most cases it should {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 be sufficient to route the message by using the Service and Action elements in the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 message header combined with which role the party receiving the message plays. The{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 following should be checked for accuracy and clarity: 7.55 Role element, 7.5.5.1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 name attribute, 7.5.7 Service element, and 7.5.8.1 action attribute. See below {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 regarding the RefToMessageId element in the message header.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb191\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb3740\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 72 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Transport{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 55{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 FTP definition{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The FTP definition may need further elaboration. For example do the Parties to a {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 CPA need to agree on:{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 · Transfer type (binary or character)?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 · Password properties?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 · Is PUT the correct operation for receiving messages? {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ¨ Note: In the CPP, the delivery channel specifies RECEIVE properties{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 · GET as well as PUT?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 · Passive mode (yes or no)?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 · Control port number for passive mode?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 · Anything else with regard to firewalls?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 · Anything else?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb224\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Transport{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 68{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Additional Transport Protocols{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Consider adding support for additional transport protocols such as:{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 · IIOP{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 · BEEP (IETF peer to peer protocol){\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 · EDI value-added networks{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb167\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb3535\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 73 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Transport{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 98{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Transport compression{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 HTTP allows transport level compression through the use of the{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Content-Encoding entity-header. The permissible compression{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 algorithms include gzip, compress, and deflate.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Should the use of transport level compression be specifiable in{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the CPA when the transport is HTTP?{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb179\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/21/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: Transport level compression{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Transport{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 81{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Overlapping endpoint types{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Section 7.5.14 indicates that a Transport element may have multiple Endpoint {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 elements, each of different types. The question I have is whether these types have to {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 be non-overlapping.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Can an Endpoint element of type allPurpose co-exist with another Endpoint element of{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 type Response under the same Transport element? If so, does it mean that a {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb179\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/1/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: Endpoint question{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb4150\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 74 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 XML{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 63{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 "generated by XML Authority" in DTD{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 It is inappropriate to include the line "generated by XML Authority" in a normative DTD.{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 (Sun submitted these quality-review comments after the version-1 specification was {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb155\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 XML{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 56{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 PartyId definition and example{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Both examples of PartyId in ver. 1.0 have the type attribute included although {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 according to the text, all the information is in the value of the attribute. We need to {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 formulate an example in which the type attribute is essential.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 XML{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 57{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 PartyId type{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 It has been suggested that a negotiation of PartyId type may be desirable since a {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 given Party may not be capable of interpreting all possible PartyId types. One {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 possibility is to add an element by which a Party can indicate which PartyId types it {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb1197\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 75 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 XML{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 65{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Namespace Definitions{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Does the change to OASIS affect any of the namespace definitions?{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 XML{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 109{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Appendix D is out of date{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Appendix D needs to be replaced with the contents of cpp-cpa-v1_0.xsd and including {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 the bug fixes I have reported in an earlier post.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The default namespace has to be set to http://www.w3c.org/2000/10/XMLSchema. {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Otherwise, the element names like Element and Attribute would have to be qualified {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 with the above namespace.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The clause xmlns = "http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema" is present in {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 cpp-cpa-v1_0.xsd but is missing from Appendix D.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb197\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/17/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: <1.0 bug> Appendix D is out of date{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb4518\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 76 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 XML{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 110{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Appendix D: Retries, RetryInterval, and PersistDuration{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 In order to conform to the W3C Recommended version of XMLSchema, the{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 following changes should be made to Appendix D:{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 - Retries should be of type integer, not string.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 - RetryInterval should be of type Duration, not string.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 - PersistDuration should be of type Duration, not timeDuration.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 In addition, the example in section 7.6.4 should be changed accordingly:{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 - The RetryInterval example should not assume the unit is second.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 - The PersistDuration example should look like PT30S. (The P designator{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 must always be present; the T designator must be present if any time item{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 is present.){\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb254\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/20/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: <1.0 bug> Retries, RetryInterval, and PersistDuration{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 XML{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 114{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Protocol element's version attribute should not be FIXED{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Section 7.6.6.1 is incorrect. The version attribute should not be fixed, as it is not {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 consistent with the schema definition in Appendix D. Since the Protocol element is {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 declared at the top level and is used in a number of different contexts, it is also not {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 appropriate to declare Protocol to have a required version attribute either. Somehow, {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 section 7.6.6.1 needs to be rephrased.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb28\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/20/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: <1.0 bug> Protocol element's version attribute should not be FIXED{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb460\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 77 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 XML{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 115{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 cpaid is not of type CDATA{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Line 1913 in section 8.2 is inconsistent with the schema definition in Appendix D: cpaid{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 should be of type tns:non-empty-string, not CDATA.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb155\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/20/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: <1.0 bug> cpaid is not of type CDATA{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 XML{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 116{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 attributeFormDefault in Appendix D incompatible with examples in Appendix A & B{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 In Appendix D, line 2932, attributeFormDefault is set to unqualified, whereas in {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Appendices A and B, the example CPP and CPA instances all refer to qualified {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 attributes (tp: prefixed).{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 When I attempted to validate the CPA instance in Appendix B against the schema in {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Appendix D, I got a lot of errors due to lots of required attributes being missing. Most {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 of these errors were fixed when I changed attributeFormDefault in the XSD to qualified.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The remaining errors I got when validating Appendix B against Appendix D were due to{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 reference to an undeclared attribute tp:name in element tp:ServiceBinding, and the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 missing of the tp:Service element under tp:ServiceBinding. This can be fixed by setting{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb10\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/20/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: <1.0 bug> attributeFormDefault in Appendix D is not compatible withexamples {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 in Appendix A & B{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb155\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb3782\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 78 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 XML{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 119{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 name attribute in ProcessSpecification{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Section 7.5.4.1 (line 836) is not consistent with Appendix D. {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 According to Appendix D, the name attribute should be of{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 type tns: non-empty-string.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/21/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: <1.0 bug> name attribute in ProcessSpecification{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 XML{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 120{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 action attribute in section 7.5.8.1and xlink:href attribute in section 7.3.7.4{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The action attribute should not be equated with the name{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 attribute of the desired BusinessTransaction. There are{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 two activities within a Business Transaction, a{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 RequestingBusinessActivity and a RespondingBusinessActivity.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ...{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Similarly, in section 7.3.7.4 xlink:href attribute, the link should be{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 to the corresponding RequestingBusinessActivity, or to the{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 corresponding RespondingBusinessActivity.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb203\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/21/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: <1.0 bug> action attribute in section 7.5.8.1{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb3945\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 79 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 XML{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Chan{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 108{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 cpp-cpa-v1_0.xsd cannot be read by Internet Explorer 5.0{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 It complains:{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 The XML page cannot be displayed Cannot view XML input using XSL style{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 sheet. Please correct the error and then click the Refresh button, or try{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 again{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 later. ---------------------------------------------------------------------{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ---------The namespace prefix is not allowed to start with the reserved{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 string "xml". Line 2, Position 72 --------------------------------------------------------------{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ---------^XML Authority 2.2 (which provides W3C XML Schema Recommendation{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 support) also complainsabout a similar problem. To remove errors flagged by{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 XML Authority, I had to:1. Remove the clause{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace"2. Change the line to{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb296\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/17/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Subject: <1.0 bug> cpp-cpa-v1_0.xsd cannot be read by Internet Explorer 5.0{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb5668\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 80 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 XML{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Wang{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 61{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Optional messageOrderSemantics attribute with value in XSD{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 This should be:{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Attributes with values specified in the schema must be declared as{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 either default or fixed.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb230\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 XML{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Wang{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 60{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 XML namespace usage{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 You are not allowed to specify a Namespace prefix of "xml".{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 So xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" should be removed.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb155\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb3740\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 81 of 82{\fs21\par}}{\page}\pard\plain\sb180\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 XML{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Wang{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 82{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 SimplePart and NamespaceSupported elements{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Section 7.7.3 SimplePart element should probabaly be numbered as 7.7.2.1 and its {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 title should be "NamespaceSupported element". (Section 7.7.2 already discusses {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 SimplePart element.){\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 NamespaceSupported should in this context be a child of SimplePart, and this should {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb173\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 email{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 8/2/2001{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 (forwarded by Arvola Chan) Subject: Fw: renumber and retitle of section 7.7.3{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 XML{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Collier{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 101{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Super schema for CPP + CPA{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 In addition, it is entirely feasible to develop a super schema that would combine a {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 description of the CPP with description of the CPA and correlate the relevant {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 components of the two using the key/keyref mechanism of XML schema. This would {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 allow a contract validator to match the correlated components to make sure that the {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb167\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 ebXML Technical Architecture Risk {\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb206\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Category\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 XML{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Submitter\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Saito{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue ID\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 62{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Issue\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Errors in CPA example{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Description\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 Yukinori Saito (5/16 and 5/17/01) pointed out errors and suggesting corrections to the{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 CPA sample regarding incorrect use of ID attribute "N08". This could be corrected {\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 and distributed on the CPPA listserver until we issue a maintenance release.{\fs19\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440\tx1560{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Origin\plain\tab\fs18\f2\cf0\cb1 'Possible New Work' Document{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb161\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Date of Origin{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tqr\tx1440{\plain\tab\fs18\b\f3\cf0\cb1 Reference{\fs22\par}}\pard\plain\sb176\tx120{\plain\tab\fs28\b\f4\cf0\cb1 ____________________________________________________{\fs42\par}}\pard\plain\sb377\tx90\tqr\tx9300{\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Friday, September 14, 2001\plain\tab\fs16\f5\cf0\cb1 Page 82 of 82{\fs21\par}}}