[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Restructuring
Open authorization means unrestricted (that is, anyone that uses the right protocol gets the quote) Of course, more restrictive policies are also supported and are generally a very good idea. -----Original Message----- From: Theo Kramer [mailto:theo@flame.co.za] Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 8:13 AM To: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] Restructuring Hi Dale Thanks for the response - to answer your question - I see nothing specified that would prevent a RFQ from being distributed over a default MPC to numerous parties, however, not sure what you mean with an open authorization policy ... do you mean authorization via non-normative means ? My concern here is that a pull request on any MPC is open to any party who knows the MPC identity without authentication in the pull request signal message. On 01 Jul 2011, at 3:55 PM, Moberg Dale wrote: > The default channel behavior is not very constrained by the specification, nor are there a lot of rules about sharing a channel (multiple authorized partners). I think it would be permissible to distribute the same document to multiple authorized partners on the default channel. There is a remark about FIFO being recommended, but it is not mandated. Bookkeeping for behavior of distributing, for example, a "request for quote" over a default channel would be implementation dependent, it seems to me. Do you see something specified that would prevent a request for quote from being distributed over a default MPC to numerous parties? Possibly such a use case could even be governed by an open authorization policy... > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Theo Kramer [mailto:theo@flame.co.za] > Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 6:12 AM > To: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] Restructuring > > Yep - but resulting imo something that is less than limited, ie. once a message is retrieved from the default MPC it is gone whether or not it was retrieved by the intended party or not. > > Perhaps a clarification/recommendation on that in the AS4 draft would suffice. > > On 01 Jul 2011, at 3:01 PM, Pim van der Eijk wrote: > >> >> Well, as I understand it, Partner authorized_for Channel is >> an N * M relation. Channel used_for Pmode is an 1 * M >> relation. >> So multiple partners could be authorized to pull from the >> default MPC, and different types of messages could be sent >> on it. >> >> But I think the practical value of the default MPC (without >> extensions like sub-channels mentioned below) is limited. > <snip> > -- > 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 -- 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]