[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: FWD: Re: reliable messaging - hop by hop
On behalf of Jamie... At 06:54 AM 8/29/01, christopher ferris wrote: >David, > >A NRR *may* not be meaningful in a legal sense unless it is >signed by an authorized signer. The private key for the certificate >that is authorized *may* not be available to the MSH for security >reasons. How you guys keep up this traffic level is beyond me. Add to CF's list the strong possibility that the sender may have effectively delegated, in a manner made binding on the recipient within or outside of the XML collaboration, the right to send NRR demands or responses to a third party delegate originating at a different point. This requires something like an "authorized signer" inquiry, but worse. I share Ferris' view that these are best NOT made exclusively MSH functions To repeat a point made elsewhere, we already have some duplicative functions in BPSS 1.0 and Messaging 1.0. The latter were somewhat inherited from RNIF 2.0. I think it best, as noted elsewhere, to keep both, but the two coextensive signal sets are not yet optimized, or coordinated, and a schema that omits one or the other is unlikely to enjoy wide adoption at present. Regards Jamie PS, someone may have to mirror this to OASIS/MSG as I am not subscribed there. James Bryce Clark VP and General Counsel McLure Moynihan Inc. Chair, ABA Business Law Subcommittee on Electronic Commerce jamie.clark@mmiec.com, jbc@lawyer.com 1 818 597 9475 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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