ebxml-cppa message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa] RE: [ebxml-msg] CPA & MS overriding parameters
- From: James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@mmiec.com>
- To: "Damodaran, Suresh" <Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com>,'Martin W Sachs' <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:08:14 -0800
Just got Suresh's laterst message after I sent mine.
At 11:32 AM 11/14/01, Damodaran, Suresh
wrote:
<sd>
The parameters that can be overridden are in CPA also because
in some cases parties may decide that these MUST not be overridden,
and state so in the policy (we may not have such a mechanism in
CPA,
but the CPA TC may consider having it)
<sd/>
We do have a mechanism in the CPA/CPP spec for non-overridable
parameters. It's called the CPA. I don't mean to be
flip. The entry assumption of using a CPA is that two trading
partners plan to conduct a logically associated set of transactions --
that may progress from the first to last without intervention.
* If we are only talking about a collaboration
composed of a single transaction, this issue is irrelevant. There
is no need to vary on a per-message bassi from the CPA parameters because
they only apply to one pair of messages.
* If we are talking about a multi-step collaboration,
could someone give me an example of a CPA-invoked parameter that I might
as a trading partner be willing to "waive" by acceeding to an
override? Here's what I am imagining:
(1) I am offering to sell widgets.
You find my offer ni a registry along with a CPP. My CPP asks you
always to XML-DSIG sign and hash through any substantive acceptance or
rejection -- as I will be bound to ship you $1000000 of widgets, and want
to be sure about your being bound to pay in a manner that gives me some
pretty good evidence that the "acceptance" came authentically
from you.
(2) You and I enter into a CPA that
includes that level of repudiation protection as a parameter.
(3) I send you my binding e-offfer
to sell, upon the acceptance of which I am bound to deliver to you.
It is containedin a message with no overrides.
(4) You return a message to be with
a logically valid and BP-conformant acceptance -- but no DSIG and a
message header that essentially says "no DSIG
needed".
Well, as a lawyer I'm just full of questions at this point, e.g., (a) Am
I bound by your acceptance? (b0 Why would I ever, if sober, agree to the
optionality of the DIOSG erquuirement in the CPA iteelf?
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC