RE: STRAWMAN of ebXML Packaging Spec - hope MS WSord is ok.

[Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>]

Dick,
Nice job! Some comments below.

Cheers,

Chris

Sect 4.3

Do we want to explicitly specify the transport specific handler
association? I would have thought not. For instance, why couldn't
an SMTP-based transport have a message delivered to joe@company.com
where user joe had a .mailcap entry (or equivalent) which mapped
specific handler application for:
    Content-Type: multipart/related; type="ebxml"; version="0.1"?

Am I missing something here?

Sect 4.5.x

If we use XML DSig to sign the header, then a single body part
for the ebxml header is appropriate. If, however, we are going to
have to use S/MIME or PGP/MIME for signing header information,
then we'll need to have header elements separate from  message
routing elements so that they can be individually signed. Thus, wouldn't
the mime type of the header envelope need to be multipart/related?

Sect 4.7

I still have reservations regarding optional support for an alternate
packaging using multipart/form-data. First, I think it complcates
things to have to support an optional alternative approach. Secondly,
couldn't the multipart/form-data simply encapsulate a multipart/related
bodypart fully conformant with the requirements specified in the
preceding sections?