ebxml-architecture message

OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]

Subject: RE: comment on TA specification


	I concur with Duane and the Trading Partner (TP) team.  The Military
Traffic Management Command (MTMC), an organization within the US Department
of Defense, would want to submit a CPP.  However, it's higher command to
which it reports, The United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM),
might want to submit it's own CPP.  At what level of the US Federal
Government would one draw the line for submitting CPP's?   	

	In order to resolve this issue, instead of deleting the sentence
(line 513-514):

		"Each Trading Partner SHALL register one and only one CPP in
		ebXML compliant Registry system."

Would it be more prudent to maintain the underlying thought process of the
sentence, which is to inform "trading partners" how may "CPP"s they can
register in the "ebXML compliant Registry system", by modifying the sentence
in a manner some what like:

		"Each Trading Partner SHALL register at least one CPP in an
		compliant Registry system."

This sentence structure should now support the idea that a Trading Partner
can submit more than one CPP, and maintain the underlying intent of ensuring
that Trading Partners understand to be ebXML compliant they must register at
a minimum one CPP.


Bob Cunningham
Military Traffic Management Command
Alexandria, VA


-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:duane@xmlglobal.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 4:59 PM
To: Martin W Sachs
Cc: knaujok@home.com; ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org; ebXML-Architecture List
Subject: Re: comment on TA specification


I can forward this one,  especially since you and I have already
discussed this in our email.


This comment is a valid concern.  There will be cases with larger
enterprises whereby different divisions of the company may wish to
express their own CPP's.  Accordingly,  this requirement for One CPP per
Company would be prohibitive.  

I vote we take it out as Marty Suggests.

Duane Nickull

Martin W Sachs wrote:
> Klaus,
> Please forward to the TA team.
> Line 513-514:  The TP team collectively does not remember stating a
> requirement of registering only one CPP per trading partner. Please remove
> this requirement.  It is overly restrictive, especially for large
> enterprises, which may need to state various combinations and permutations
> of capabilities for different purposes.
> Regards,
> Marty
> Martin W. Sachs
> IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
> P. O. B. 704
> Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
> 914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
> Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
> Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC