Re: [PartyId "type" negotiation]

[Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>]

"William J. Kammerer" wrote:

> There is no need for either party to use the same type of addressing as
> the other.

Sorry, that was not my point. If one party uses arbitrary partyId "type"
(for their own partyId), the receiving party may not have the framework to
verify the Id to be a valid one per the "type" (say DUNS).

Currently it seems theoretically at least one can accomplish this by having
multiple PartyInfo elements (or separate CPPs  :^&) with different PartyId
specs. It would be good to have a way to offer options and pick the ones
that suit both parties, in one instance of the CPP.


> I might have both a DUNS and an NMFTA SCAC (being a motor carrier) and
> identify myself in the CPP with two <PartyId> alternates.  Either is
> acceptable for addressing me.   My trading partner may be a retail
> chain, with a DUNS and a UCC/EAN GLN, again each being acceptable IDs to
> him. I may address the retail chain by his DUNS, and he may choose to
> address me by my SCAC. Yet another third party, a bank, might choose to
> address us each by our respective DUNS, and we might address the bank by
> its ABA Routing Code.
>