This might be a case for including a non-normative explanation of what is
intended.
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 <> on 01/04/2002 09:55:17 AM
To:
Christopher Ferris <>
cc:
David Fischer <>, Arvola Chan
<>, ebXML Msg <>,
"Ian. C. Jones (E-mail)" <>
Subject:
RE: [ebxml-msg] Messaging Spec v1.092
Chris,
I agree with the technique. I can even make a convincing
argument for including the capability. I would think that if a message
originator requested a signed receipt and did not elect to sign the
original document that the orignator would have a facility to validate
the signature value returned in the receipt.
I have a significant collection of legacy data and I am having
trouble processing this discussion in light of many previous debates, to
include those with members of the ABA and some elements of the Federal
Government. My issue boils down to, "I am concerned about the
perceptions it may spawn." This may not be sufficient enough reason to
vote against supporting the capability. I can remember early
discussions regarding dis-embodies signatures and the number of people
asking, "who would ever do that?"
Ralph
