+1
Doug Bunting wrote:
> This issue points to a fundamental and inconsistent change in the 2.0
> specification when compared with the 1.0 version. We have previously agreed
> and documented in numerous locations that ebMS signals referencing a
> particular incoming message must be sent in a message that uses the
> MessageHeader/RefToMessageId element appropriately.
>
> David has suggested this addition (which was not discussed by the group since
> I rejoined) supports bundling acknowledgements. What makes acknowledgements
> special in this regard? What about errors, responses to multiple message
> status requests, et cetera?
>
> I recommend we remove this element, especially because it is required and
> would normally just duplicate the value appearing in
> MessageHeader/RefToMessageId.
>
> thanx,
> doug
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>