[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: T2 Success Codes
That's intesting because IMO such things as signature verification are MSH level. In fact we have error codes indicating security failures thus we should have success codes indicating security success. I very much agree that there are many successes which will be application level. Regards, David Fischer Drummond Group. -----Original Message----- From: christopher ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 6:34 AM To: David Fischer Cc: David Burdett; ebXML Msg Subject: Re: T2 Success Codes David, We did not define success codes. If anything, these would be application level codes, not MSH-level codes. Now, in the BPSS specification, there are a number of message patterns defined, which have specific messages/signals associated with these message patterns. These aren't defined *intentionally* by the MS specification. These are defined by the BP specification because they aren't necessary to the core processing of the MSH. Cheers, Chris > David Fischer wrote: > > I don't see any Success Codes or a place to put them. There should be a way to put different > success codes in both the Acknowledgement and the DeliveryReceipt elements. There may be several > different kinds of success like Processed/PassedOn or Processed/Dispatched or > Processed/SignatureVerified or Processed/DecryptSuccess or.... These could be the value of the > element or they could be in a sub-element. > > It is probably not sufficient to just get an Acknowledgement back without the granularity of > different success codes. I don't want to have to create an entirely separate bodypart just to put > in a success code? > > Regards, > > David Fischer > Drummond Group.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC