RE: Re[2]: Trading Partner Logical Identification based on EDIFA

[David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com>]

Marty

Somewhere in this text you say ...

>>>Again, it is the combination of registry ID, partner ID, TPA ID, and
conversation ID that does the routing<<<

I'm under the impression that conversation ID is equivalent to what the TRP
used to call the Message Set Id which was defined as a unique identifier for
the set of messages exchanged between two parties that support the instance
of an execution of a service.

On the other hand the current spec defines conversationId as a URI which
identifies the conversation instance of the Trading Partner Agreement which
governs the processing of the message and which holds the state of the
conversation between the two Parties

I don't think these things are quite the same. Can you clarify the
distinction between a TPA Id and a Conversation Id. As if a Conversation Id
means the same as the old Message Set Id I don't think it should be used for
routing.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: mwsachs@us.ibm.com [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 3:24 PM
To: David RR Webber
Cc: Mark NOBLES; ebXML-Transport@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Trading Partner Logical Identification based on
EDIFA


Quite a flurry of postings!  I just got caught up on it.  I sense a great
deal of violent agreement on the identifier subject.  I agree with Mark
Nobles' last posting and Dave Webber's agreement with it.  Here are a few
summary points:

<SNIP>