That's intesting because IMO such things as signature verification are MSH
level. In fact we have error codes indicating security failures thus we should
have success codes indicating security success. I very much agree that there
are many successes which will be application level.
Regards,
David Fischer
Drummond Group.
-----Original Message-----
From: christopher ferris [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 6:34 AM
To: David Fischer
Cc: David Burdett; ebXML Msg
Subject: Re: T2 Success Codes
David,
We did not define success codes. If anything, these would be
application level codes, not MSH-level codes.
Now, in the BPSS specification, there are a number of message
patterns defined, which have specific messages/signals associated
with these message patterns. These aren't defined *intentionally*
by the MS specification. These are defined by the BP specification
because they aren't necessary to the core processing of the MSH.
Cheers,
Chris
> David Fischer wrote:
>
> I don't see any Success Codes or a place to put them. There should be a way
to put different
> success codes in both the Acknowledgement and the DeliveryReceipt elements.
There may be several
> different kinds of success like Processed/PassedOn or Processed/Dispatched or
> Processed/SignatureVerified or Processed/DecryptSuccess or.... These could be
the value of the
> element or they could be in a sub-element.
>
> It is probably not sufficient to just get an Acknowledgement back without the
granularity of
> different success codes. I don't want to have to create an entirely separate
bodypart just to put
> in a success code?
>
> Regards,
>
> David Fischer
> Drummond Group.
