Re: Comments on the Requirements

[Henry Lowe <hlowe@omg.org>]

Jerry,

See below:

At 01:10 PM 01/06/2000 -0600, Jerry L. Brown wrote:
>All,
>Sorry to be so late in participation but I did manage to have vacation
>the entire month of December.  But getting back in the thick of things,
>here are some comments I have toward the requirement document.  Some
>comments may be duplicated of if they need further explanation please
>let me know.  These are by far not the only requirements that we may
>need from the aspect of the Travel Industry point of view.  I did notice
>that the requirements has a “document flavor” in terms of the Internet
>world so as not to confuse anyone where possible I’ll try and keep our
>Travel Industry specific terms generic and from a “document” point of
>view.  My comments are as follow:
>
>1. a) in the case of multiple documents that are directly related, a
>method of sequencing must be possible.  (May be a point in 5  2))

Could you clarify what you mean by "sequencing", e.g., sequence 
numbers on docs?

>
>2. e) a distinction must be made between system errors and application
>errors.  For example being unable to fulfill a request due to
>insufficient data to process or a lack product vs. system down,
>interrupt condition.

Yep!

>
>3. 3) envelope needs to allow for routing hops or multiple addresses.
>Not to be confused with broadcast addressing.

I think David already has this covered.

>
>10. 1)
>Scenarios ­ Provide an element within the transport packaging envelope
>that indicates to the receiving front-end device that specific business
>scenarios and dialogues are possible within this set of message
>exchanges.

Is this a workflow sort of thing?


Best regards,
Henry