W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > December 2000

RE: DR027: Audit trails

From: Krishna Sankar <ksankar@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:56:22 -0800
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NABBJDOPDKGCDCNBNEDOEEJADCAA.ksankar@cisco.com>
Yep, my sentiments as well. We need to keep the requirements for audit
trails. Can we combine them so that the requirements become more clear -
somewhat in the lines of

"There must be a way to deal with audit trails of the protocol flow
including the ability to determine a message's path through preceding
intermediates"

cheers
-----Original Message-----
From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Henry Lowe
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 7:40 AM
To: Oisin Hurley
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject: RE: DR027: Audit trails


Audit trails are a requirement for many B2B applications
and this is in ebXML.  Consolidation of duplicates is OK,
but it shouldn't be dropped entirely.

Best regards,
Henry
----------------
At 05:57 AM 12/13/2000 +0000, Oisin Hurley wrote:
>
>> DR027: "There must be a way to deal with audit trails of the
>> protocol flow."
>>
>> Duplicate of R807
>> "Tracking - enabling message recipients to determine a message's path
>> through preceding intermediates"
>>
>> Drop?
>
>The XML protocol specification is not a place to deal specifically with
>protocol flow options - so I agree with the drop call.
>
>However it is possible, given the existence of intermediaries and their
>recognition of first-class citizens in the message delivery, to perform
>at least a basic form of auditing.
>
> --oh
>
>--
>ohurley at iona dot com
>+353 1 637 2639
>
Received on Wednesday, 13 December 2000 13:55:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:58 GMT