RE: T2 Behavior of IM and non IM MSH,was RE: T2 PLEAE READ - Sug gested solution to RM Issues

A few highlights drawn here.

Dan said ... "We have said that in the A-B-C-D example, A would have "two
CPA's", one being a CPA between A and B, and the other being a CPA between A
and D."

The ebXML MS Spec already supports this as we have the CPAId in the message
header which could be used between A and D and another CPAId in the Via
which could be used between A and B and changed for later hops. I know
(think?) the CPPA spec does not support this distinction though.

Dale said ...
>>>I think that ebXML in general will provide a proper treatment of
intermediaries once both BPSS and CPA evolve to handle multiparty
conversations. If we can confine TRP MSG to handle standard MSH to MSH and
the additional case of forwarders, that would be sufficient for 1.1.<<<
I agree. Support for forwarders of messages is important functionality and
the 1.0 spec already provides almost all the required functionality.

David