ebxml-msg — archive

RE: [ebxml-msg] Messaging Spec v1.092

From: System
To: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 10:33:00 -0000

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 <[email protected]> on 01/04/2002 09:55:17 AM To: Christopher Ferris <[email protected]> cc: David Fischer <[email protected]>, Arvola Chan <[email protected]>, ebXML Msg <[email protected]>, "Ian. C. Jones (E-mail)" <[email protected]> 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