[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [ebxml-cppa] Re: wrt CPP version 2.0
Radhika,
The answer is "no".
The ServiceBinding element must contain at least one CanSend or CanReceive
element or at least one of each.
You have found a subtle problem of English grammar. Here is a possible
revised sentence for the CPPA team to consider. The sentence beginning in
line 1284 should be replaced by:
"It must contain at least one CanReceive or CanSend child element. It
can contain one or more of each of the CanReceive
or CanSend child elements."
NOTE: I have deliberately avoided the word MAY in the added sentence since
this a user choice, not a vendor option.
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
*************************************************************************************
Radhika Menon
<radikamenon@yaho To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
o.co.in> cc:
Subject: Re: wrt CPP version 2.0
09/09/2002 02:14
AM
Hi,
Thanks for clarification, but I have one more doubt
wrt ServiceBinding element.
I would be glad if you could provide some light on the
following.
## According to the specs cpp 2.0, it says that the
ServiceBinding element MUST contain at least One
CanSend or CanReceive Element.
Q>> Does it mean that the ServiceBinding element MUST
only have either CanSend or CanReceive element and not
both in a single CPP ?
thanks in advance.
with best regards,
radika
--- Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com> wrote: >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Radika,
>
> My responses to your questions are below.
>
> Regards,
> Marty Sachs
>
>
*************************************************************************************
>
> 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
>
*************************************************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
> Radhika Menon
>
>
> <radikamenon@yaho To:
> ebxml-cppa-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
>
> o.co.in> cc:
>
>
>
> Subject: wrt CPP version 2.0
>
> 08/29/2002 05:33
>
>
> AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> As am involved in providing implementation for CPP
> version 2.0 specs, I would like to get clarification
> on the following points emerged after going through
> the CPP 2.0 specification.
>
> 1. what is the purpose of CanSend and CanReceive
> elements in CPP.
>
> MWS: CanSend and CanReceive identify the delivery
> channel to be used for sending and receiving the
> messages for each action. In general, an action
> maps to a particular requesting or responding
> business activity in the BPSS instance.
>
> 2. what is the significance of having the (0 or more
> )CanReceive element as a child element of CanSend
> element.
>
> MWS: CanReceive is included as a child element of
> CanSend
> to support synchronous responses. CanReceive
> provides
> the necessary delivery channel information for
> receiving
> the response message when this party is the sender
> of the message in the requesting business activity..
>
> 3. what is the significance of having the (0 or more
> )CanSend element as a child element of CanReceive
> element.
>
> MWS: CanSend is a child of CanReceive for
> synchronous
> messages. This is the case where this party is
> sending the response message in the responding
> business activity.
>
> 4. upto how many levels the CanSend or CanReceive
> Elements can be recurring within itself.
>
> MWS: For practical purposes, there is only one level
> since a requesting or responding business activity
> is only a single request and response pair. The
> choreography is defined by the BPSS instance
> document.
> The schema may not prohibit multiple levels but I
> don't think there is a use case for more than one
> level.
>
> 5. I do understand the purpose of ReliableMessaging
> element and its child elements in the context of
> ebXMLSenderBinding Element. I really don't
> understand
> why is it required in case of ebXMLReceiverBinding
> Element.
>
> MWS: Each delivery channel has to contain
> information
> about both parties in order to ensure that their
> messaging characteristics are compatible. That's why
> both ebXMLSenderBinding and ebXMLReceiverBinding are
> needed. One simply example is that both parties
> have certificates and the CPA has to identify whose
> certificate is used in each security function. For
> example, a sending Party has to encrypt using the
> receiving Party's certificate so that the receiving
> party can decrypt.
>
> I would be glad if anyone of you can clear all my
> doubts and provide with the necessary information.
>
> Thanks in Advance.
>
> with best regards,
> radika.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
> Want to sell your car? advertise on Yahoo Autos
> Classifieds. It's Free!!
> visit http://in.autos.yahoo.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
Want to sell your car? advertise on Yahoo Autos Classifieds. It's Free!!
visit http://in.autos.yahoo.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC