Re: Latest packaging spec...

[Henry Lowe <hlowe@omg.org>]

At 06:12 PM 04/24/2000 -0500, Dick Brooks wrote:
>Here it is folks, let me know if I missed anything.
>
>The glossary needs to be completed, but everything else appears in order.
----------------------------------
Hi Dick and Nick,

Looks pretty good for release to all of ebXML.

Here are a few minor comments:

Clause 4.3:
As the handler seems to be mandatory, perhaps you want to add text 
to the effect that the handler could, in fact, be the application.
In some cases, e.g., where the sender knows exactly which application 
will handle the message, efficiency can be gained by not requiring 
a separate handler (no extra overhead for the handler to hand the 
message to some application with delays due to context swaps, local 
communication mechanisms, etc.).  Actually, you may want to put all 
the implementation related text into a NOTE so it isn't part of 
the normative text.

Clause 4.4.1:
The explanatory text about how the decision on content-type was 
made should probably be put into a NOTE so it can be removed before 
final approval when ebXML finishes in May 2001.  By putting it in 
a NOTE, reviewers can distinguish between normative and explanatory 
text easily.

Clause 4.4.3:
I love 'boundary="-------8760"' -- is it mandatory in all cases?  ;-)

Clause 4.5.4:
When there is a real header example, it would be nice if it could 
be signed.

Clause 4.6.3:
It would be somewhat clearer if "ebXML header" were changed to read 
"ebXML payload header".

Best regards,
Henry