RE: comments from Clark and Haugen

["Chmielewski, Irvin W" <irvin.chmielewski@eds.com>]

I agree somewhat with your comment.  However, I believe that the answer on a
receipt ack is in between the two positions.  There may be a receipt ack
which can be  used to tell a sender that a file has been received but gives
no verification of content.  (Similar to signing for a package being
delivered by an express carrier.)  Sometimes you may want this receipt
verification and sometimes not.

Irvin Chmielewski
Senior Consultant
EDS -  E.Business eXchange
Phone: (248) 265-9258


-----Original Message-----
From: Karsten Riemer [mailto:Karsten.Riemer@east.sun.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 11:16 AM
To: Karsten Riemer
Cc: ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org; ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Re: comments from Clark and Haugen


Upon closer reading of Jim's and Bob's comments, I have a request for
clarification. Jim states: 
A transaction will have zero or one responding BusinessDocument, but always
a
ReceiptAck and maybe also an AcceptanceAck

Is this really true? Must there always be a ReceiptAck? Why?
I was under the impression that a notification (which is also a business
transaction) would have no responding document and also no signals. And if a
transaction does have a responding document, then why require a ReceiptAck?

What is the RosettaNet implementation. Do they allow a transaction to not
have
any signals?

-karsten

>Hi,
>for our meeting today, here is a set of comments received from Jim Clark
and
>Bob Haugen. To view the comments, use M/S words menu option view->comments.
>I anticipate that we can agree to incorporate most of the comments and move
>on
>to submit the document to QR tomorrow as planned.
>Note that the document we will submit to QR will contain both the DTD sent
>out
>by Cory Casanave yesterday, as well as the set of interaction patterns
>contributed by Jim Clark. The version of the document I published yesterday
>had neither, only to keep the document short for transmission purposes.
>
>thanks,
>-karsten
>
>(Paul Levine will send out meeting notice, but it will be at 12 noon EST)