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] Status element


                                                                                                               
                                                                                                               
                                                                                                               


I agree with Dale's proposed words,
   "signed", meaning that the CPA has been "signed" by
   one or more of the Parties...

We should also include: "A note about the process -- that the first
signer must change the value-- can also be
added."

Regards,
Marty
*************************************************************************************

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************


                                                                                                                                              
                      "Dale Moberg"                                                                                                           
                      <dmoberg@cycloneco        To:       Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, <ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>                  
                      mmerce.com>               cc:                                                                                           
                                                Subject:  RE: [ebxml-cppa] Status element                                                     
                      08/19/2002 03:46                                                                                                        
                      PM                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                              



I think that clarification can be added to reflect
that the status value of "signed" is used whenever
at least one (one or more) signature is present.

When a second
or third signature is added,
the status should
remain signed.

A note about the process -- that the first
signer must change the value-- can also be
added.

I am unpersuaded that we restrict the meaning
of signed to
  "signed", meaning that the first Party has signed the CPA...

I would prefer a clarification such as:

    "signed", meaning that the CPA has been "signed" by
(one or more of) the Parties...



-----Original Message-----
From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 12:15 PM
To: ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ebxml-cppa] Status element



The current version of the CPPA spec states, regarding the value of the
value attribute of the status element (line 3015):

     "signed", meaning that the CPA has been "signed" by the Parties...

I believe that this is incorrect.  The value of the value attribute must
be
set to "signed" just before the first party signs.  It cannot be
modified
after that without invalidating the first party's signature. I suggest
changing the statement to:

     "signed", meaning that the first Party has signed the CPA...

I also suggest adding a note clarifying why the value has to be set to
"signed" when the first party signs.  For example:

     NOTE:  The value fo the value attribute has to be set to "signed"
just
before the first party signs.  It cannot be changed after the first
party
signs because that would
    invalidate the signature.

Alternatively, we could change the specification to require that the
Status
element be outside the scope of the first Party's signature. However,
that
is a functional change which might be inappropriate during the approval
process.

Regards,
Marty



************************************************************************
*************

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
************************************************************************
*************


----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>





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


Powered by eList eXpress LLC