[ebxml-msg] Section 3.1.2 reworking of what appeared to be consensusview, action item 1

[Martin Sachs <m.w.sachs@post.harvard.edu>]

The word MAY is not appropriate in the second sentence  because it permits 
a vendor to omit checking whether messages conflict with the CPA, in 
conflict with the first sentence, which requires that the check be 
implemented.  I suggest for the second sentence:  It is permissible for a 
receiver to configure its MSH not to check whether messages conflict..."


At 06:57 PM 3/12/2003 -0700, Dale Moberg wrote:

> From Section 3.1.2
>New DRAFT language
>
>A receiver MUST be capable of determining that a message is in conflict
>with an actual CPA agreed to between the parties. A receiver MAY be
>configured not to check whether messages conflict with the CPA governing
>the message, for performance or some other reason. If a receiver checks
>whether the message conforms with an agreed upon CPA governing the
>message, then if a Receiving MSH detects an inconsistency, then it MUST
>report it with an errorCode of Inconsistent and a severity of Error.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
*************************************
Martin Sachs
standards architect
Cyclone Commerce
msachs@cyclonecommerce.com

*************************************************
Martin W. Sachs
email:  m.w.sachs@post.harvard.edu
phone:  203-226-0524 


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