Re: comments on David's proposed changes

[christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>]

Rich,

The sender of the message is explicitly identified by the value of the
MessageHeader/From/PartyId element. What is being suggested is that the
From element of the DeliveryReceipt element be removed. 

The real problem here is that the business intent of DeliveryReceipt
is ill-defined (it is NOT our job... that lies with the BP team IMHO)
or at best, muddied by possible confusion with a ReceiptAcknowledgment
as defined by the BP specification, which has a specific meaning
in the context of a message exchange from the business perspective.

The complication arises when you take David's use case into account.
That a third party (intermediary?) provides a DeliveryReceipt on behalf
of the actual recipient, which is when the DeliveryReceipt/From/PartyId
would
be different (if I understand correctly) than the
MessageHeader/From/PartyId.

It is also unclearly specified as to what values (who's PartyId) would
be used for each of these elements in such a case.

IMHO, the inclusion of a *separate* From/PartyId element in the
DeliveryReceipt makes things a) more complicated and b) has implications
which I don't believe have been thoroughly investigated either from
a business or security perspective.

Cheers,

Chris

Rich Salz wrote:
> 
> I'm confused.  I don't see how explicitly stating who sent a message is
> more complicated then leaving it out.  I am also bothered by the
> security implications of making the identity completely implied by the
> identity in the cert (or whatever's used).
>         /r$
begin:vcard 
n:Ferris;Christopher
tel;cell:508-667-0402
tel;work:781-442-3063
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Sun Microsystems, Inc;XTC Advanced Development
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:chris.ferris@east.sun.com
title:Sr. Staff Engineer
fn:Christopher Ferris
end:vcard