Re: [ebxml-msg] Issue 26: Two issues with Manifest validation

For both sub-issues or only the first?

thanx,

    doug

David Fischer wrote:
 We
went over 26 on the Conference call and decided to put "Not Accepted" on
this item.David.

-----Original
Message-----

From: Doug Bunting [mailto:]

Sent: Tuesday, February 12,
2002 4:29 PM

To: ebXML

Subject: [ebxml-msg] Issue
26: Two issues with Manifest validation

 

Issue 26 contains two sub-issues:

Removal of a note recommending an unreferenced payload be discarded as
per prior discussion in the group and on the list.  I can remember
Chris' email recommending we remove this note but don't recall the followup
discussion or any agreement as David cites in his disagreement.  Could
we have pointers into the archive for and against removing this note?

Aligning Manifest and Signature validation with respect to allowing the
content-location option in both.  Since we already recommend alignment
between eb:Reference@xlink:href and ds:Reference@URI values, the lack of
content-location description in section 3.2.2 is an apparent conflict. 
Removing that conflict improves the clarity of the document and does not
add additional features to our specification.  I recommend we make
this change, regardless of the outcome of the first sub-issue.

thanx,

    doug