RE: comments from Clark and Haugen

[Cory Casanave <cory-c@dataaccess.com>]

This looks to me like it should be in the transport as
"isSecureTransportRequired". 

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Karsten Riemer [SMTP: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)
>