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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-cppa message

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


Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa] CPPA teleconference minutes: October 18, 2001


David,

Please see my comments below.

Cheers,

Chris

David Fischer wrote:

> Sorry I missed the meeting, it didn't make it onto my calendar.
> 
>  
> 
> Comments:
> 
>  
> 
> If end-to-end, signed Acknowledgment is requested, it provides NRR -- in 
> the same way DeliveryReceipt does.  NRR cannot be provided at the 
> BPSS/Application level since MSH does not pass the entire message and 
> thus the Application cannot generate the required Digest(s). 


Says who? Nothing in the specification prevents the entire unadulterated
message from being passed to the "application". The "application" can
most certainly do NRR. Please keep in mind that many believe that ONLY
the "application" can do NRR.


> 
>  
> 
> Since the MSH does not do any application parsing, any Business Level 
> receipts cannot be done at the MSH level.  While the Application cannot 
> do NRR, it can/must provide anything along the lines of "Message 
> verified/being processed" (i.e. Delivery Receipt).  The Application 
> would pass this signal to the MSH with a flag which says "sign this".  
> While it would not be illegal for the Application to send a 
> signed/encrypted payload to the MSH (would this be S/MIME?), it is not 
> within our model to do so.


There's nothing in the spec that says that MSH functionality (and I
don't necessarily consider signing to be a function of an MSH mind you)
cannot be made available to higher levels of software.


> 
>  
> 
> An Acknowledgment can be requested separately from Reliable Messaging 
> although the only difference is duplicateElimination.
> 
>  
> 
> I thing/agree that MSH signals should be returned synchronously for 
> HTTP.  This should be the default.  Maybe we don't need a flag, just 
> make this a requirement (Why would this ever be done asynchronously for 
> HTTP?)  I think I agree with Dale.  This should match the transport 
> method (sync for HTTP, async for SMTP) and should not change per message.


I agree that the MSH "signals" should be returned synchronously
on the HTTP response in the HTTP binding.


> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
>  
> 
> David Fischer
> 
> Drummond Group.
> 
>  
> 
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Tony Weida [mailto:rweida@hotmail.com]
>     Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 5:05 PM
>     To: CPPA
>     Subject: [ebxml-cppa] CPPA teleconference minutes: October 18, 2001
> 
>     Draft minutes of the October 18 teleconference are attached.  Please
>     send me any additions or corrections.
> 
>      
> 
>     Cheers,
> 
>     Tony Weida
> 
>     Independent CPPA Fan :-)
> 




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


Powered by eList eXpress LLC