On behalf of Jamie...
At 06:54 AM 8/29/01, christopher ferris wrote:
>David,
>
>A NRR *may* not be meaningful in a legal sense unless it is
>signed by an authorized signer. The private key for the certificate
>that is authorized *may* not be available to the MSH for security
>reasons.
How you guys keep up this traffic level is beyond me.
Add to CF's list the strong possibility that the sender may have
effectively delegated, in a manner made binding on the recipient within or
outside of the XML collaboration, the right to send NRR demands or
responses to a third party delegate originating at a different point. This
requires something like an "authorized signer" inquiry, but worse.
I share Ferris' view that these are best NOT made exclusively MSH
functions To repeat a point made elsewhere, we already have some
duplicative functions in BPSS 1.0 and Messaging 1.0. The latter were
somewhat inherited from RNIF 2.0. I think it best, as noted elsewhere, to
keep both, but the two coextensive signal sets are not yet optimized, or
coordinated, and a schema that omits one or the other is unlikely to enjoy
wide adoption at present.
Regards Jamie
PS, someone may have to mirror this to OASIS/MSG as I am not subscribed there.
James Bryce Clark
VP and General Counsel
McLure Moynihan Inc.
Chair, ABA Business Law Subcommittee on Electronic Commerce
,
1 818 597 9475
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
