RE: [ebxml-msg] CSD03 for AS4

[Jacques Durand <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>]

Inline <JD>

-----Original Message-----
From: Theo Kramer [mailto:theo@flame.co.za] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 12:16 PM
To: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] CSD03 for AS4

I spent some time with our chief sw developer reviewing the latest draft of CSD03 for AS4  with the view of preparing our statement of use, and any changes that we would need to make to conform to the spec. 

I noted that, amongst others, there appear to be areas that raise questions and areas that  would benefit the reader if rephrased.

Some of the questions raised include the following

Section 2.2.3.6
Pmode[1].Security.SendReceipt.ReplyPattern: support required (for "response"))

should this not read

Pmode[1].Security.SendReceipt.ReplyPattern: support required (for "callback") ?

<JD> Only when the "Light Client" is acting as a Receiver for the (pulled) one-way. For a one-way / push, this is still "response". But you put the finger on the fact that the PMode displayed here is only for the One-way / Push, initiated by the Light Client. Either we just say that explicitly, or we should also introduce alternative PMode values when the PMode.MEPbinding is "pull". In which case we should say:
Pmode[1].Security.SendReceipt.ReplyPattern: support required (for "response" if PMode.MEPbinding is "push", and for "callback" if PMode.MEPbinding is "pull".))  
 
Section 3.4
Lines 567 to 570 (para 2 of 3.4)
The phrase '... both as a business receipt...' appears incorrect as the MSH does not guarantee receipt of a message by the consumer application - see bullet (b) in the following paragraph.

Should this not simply be '... both as a receipt...' ?

<JD> but isn't it still a business receipt (even if it does not reach the final application destination)...? In other words, it may be a "failed" business receipt if not delivered.

I understand that a vote was passed to have csd03 for as4 submitted for public review of 15 days and am wondering if TC members are excluded from participating in the public review.

<JD> TC members can also produce comments I understand. Maybe we should address these before proceeding further...

Please advise if that is the case, and if so what the process would be for addressing the issues that I have.

On 23 Feb 2011, at 10:40 PM, Pim van der Eijk wrote:

> Hello,
>  
> Here are the URLs for the document we just approved as CSD 03.
>  
> ODT:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-msg-as4/document.php?document_id=41252
>  
> ODT with diffs to CS:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-msg-as4/document.php?document_id=41253
>  
> PDF:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-msg-as4/document.php?document_id=41254
>  
> HTML:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-msg-as4/document.php?document_id=41255
>  
> It also incorporates results of the discussion mentioned below that we just discussed and decided on during our meeting.
>  
> Pim
> 

-- 
Regards
Theo


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php