Re: Updated Comment List

[mwsachs@us.ibm.com]

Here are the corrections and categorizations to my messaging servcie
comments.  At the end, I repeat a few that seem to have gotten overlooked.
As we discussed this morning, if necessary, they can remain open until the
next revision.

Item numbers are with respect to the change list distributed 8/28 with the
posting appended below.

Item no.  Line no.       Category  Comments
6    99-100         1
8    102       1
25   183-184   2
26   187       2
27   188-189   2
42   210-211   2
68   386       1
76   301       1
91   346       1
103  376-377   1
104  478-479   3         A corresponding comment on ConversationID is
missing.
105  491       1         Text truncated - replace "...attribute in" by
"...attribute in TPAId"
106  492       1
107  482-484   1
108  485-486   1
125  462-464   2
131  501       1
132  505       1
135  507-511   2         Part of the text of the comment is missing.
138  520       1         Part of the text of the comment is missing.
139  521       1
143  528       1
146  532       1
147  527       1
148  541+      1
152  General        3         separate email
156  544+      1
161  781+      1

The following comments appear to have been overlooked.

2.2  Transport Envelope

Lines 181-190:  In general, I do not understand these paragraphs.  (Today's
resolution on the conference call is acceptable.)

3.3.1  From and To

Lines 462-464:  Category 2:  If the specification lists a set of
identifiers which can be values of the context attribute, this list should
be described as suggestions.  A pair of partners in a business relationship
should be free to define a private pair of identifiers.

3.3.3 MessageData

Line  501: Category 3:  MessageId does not have to be globally unique.  At
most, it has to be unique only between a pair of partners who have a
business relationship.  It should be unacceptable to have to go to a global
repository for an ID for each message.  I believe that the message ID has
to be unique only within the messaging service of the "From" party and
should be allowed to be implementation-defined as a rapid locator.

Line 505:  Category 3:  RefToMessageId has to state which party created the
referred-to message.  This provides the necessary uniqueness within the
pair of parties, assuming that my comment above, concerning MessageId, is
accepted.  Please create a tag structure which includes the party ID, such
as:
     <RefToMessage>
          <RefToMessageID>...</RefToMessageId>
          <PartyId context="...">...
               </PartyId>
          </RefToMessage>

Regards,
Marty

*************************************************************************************

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************



Ralph Berwanger <rab7067@earthlink.net> on 08/28/2000 04:06:56 PM

To:   "ebXML Transport (E-mail)" <ebXML-Transport@lists.ebxml.org>
cc:
Subject:  Updated Comment List




Attached is the comment list (version 1.2) with all  correction.  I never
received anything from Marty so his comments remain as  originally
submitted.

Ralph Berwanger