RE: [ebxml-cppa-comment] Public Comment

[Martin Sachs <msachs@cyclonecommerce.com>]

Hi Dale,

If the cardinality in the schema is unbounded, the text should say
"1 or more". In addition, the text should be clarified by
adding the points you mentioned.  

If the CPA has to contain exactly one SignatuareAlgorithm element in each
place while the CPP can contain more than one, then the text should
explain this. If the CPA can contain more than one SignatureAlgorithm
element with ordering by preference, then the text should say so.
Obviously, the schema cannot enforce the difference between CPP and CPA
rules, so the text must have clear normative statements about the
difference.

The correct place in the specification to put the points in the above
paragraph is in Section 9 "CPA definition" as is done with
other elements whose treatments are different in the CPP and CPA. It
should probably be in a new second-level (9.X) section
"SenderNonRepudiation and ReceiverNonRepudiation
Elements".  The text in 8.4.43. and 8.4.54 should say:

 "...1 or more SignatureAlgorithm elements.  See the discussion in (cross. ref. to section 9.x) on the differences between the cardinalty in the CPP and CPA."

Regards,
Marty

At 11:18 AM 3/18/2004, Dale Moberg wrote:
> Hi Marty and Louise,
>
> Some more input. From the CPP perspective, there is a need to be able
> to
> specify many algorithms
> (probably not unbounded, but that would certainly not be overly
> restrictive!). From the CPA perspective,
> I think typically there would be exactly one. So the schema needs 
> to
> remain unbounded IMO. If a CPA 
> were to contain multiples, in keeping with our usual semantics, it
> would
> be an ordering by preference.
>
> But I wonder whether we need to change the textual REQUIRED if we
> have
> "1 or more" ? 
>
> Dale Moberg
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Sachs 
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 9:04 AM
> To: louise.peres@francetelecom.com
> Cc: ebxml-cppa-comment@lists.oasis-open.org; ebxml-cppa
> Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa-comment] Public Comment
> Importance: Low
>
>
> Hi Louise,
>
> Thank you for your comment.  I agree that you have identified a
> problem.
>
> The CPPA team will have to decide whether the schema should be
> changed
> to 
> specify a cardinality of 1 or the text should be changed to specify
> "one
> or 
> more SignatureAlgorithm elements". The corrections are needed in
> both 
> ebXMLSenderBinding and ebXMLReceiverBinding.
>
> Regards,
> Martin Sachs
>
>
> At 10:49 AM 3/18/2004, comment-form@oasis-open.org wrote:
> >Comment from: louise.peres@francetelecom.com
> >
> >Hi All !
> >
> >My question is about ebXMLSenderBinding and ebXMLReceiverBinding
> inthe
> >DocExchange Element.
> >
> >In the SenderNonRepudiation and also ReceiverNonRepudiation
> elements,
> >there is a difference between  the Document and the schema
> :
> >
> >The Document says that the SenderNonRepudiation has a REQUIRED
> >SignatureAlgorithm element, and the in the schema  the
> SignatureAlgorithm 
> >has maxOccurs="unbounded".
> >
> >It's the same thing for the ReceiverNonRepudiation element.
> >
> >Thanks for your opinion about this difference.
> >
> >Best Regards
> >
> >Louise PERES FranceTelecom France
> >
> >To unsubscribe from this list, send a post to
> >ebxml-cppa-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org, or visit 
> >http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/.
>
> *************************************
> Martin Sachs
> standards architect
> Cyclone Commerce
> msachs@cyclonecommerce.com 
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, send a post to
> ebxml-cppa-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org, or visit
> http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/.

*************************************
Martin Sachs
standards architect
Cyclone Commerce
msachs@cyclonecommerce.com