RE: Non-Repudiation - A Lower Level?

Oh, I misunderstood what you were saying.  Agree now.  Thanks for the
clarification.  
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 6:23 PM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Non-Repudiation - A Lower Level?


 

-----Original Message-----
From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com]
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 6:16 PM
To: 'Champion, Mike'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Non-Repudiation - A Lower Level?


If there is a need for web services standards for non-repudiation (in the
looser sense in which I am using the term) or auditing (perhaps in a
stricter sense than the term is often used?) so that such applications can
interoperate, then shouldn't that be part of the web services architecture
we define?

As I see it, there is a strong requirement that the web services
architecture define the pieces that would implement "non repudiation" in the
weak sense that there is an audit trail that either an application or some
humans can use to resolve issues such as "you didn't pay" "yes we did."  I
was objecting to getting down to the details, e.g. "Below a certain dollar
amount of transaction, there is no need for third party overview for
non-repudiation."  I see that as the job of some vertical industry standards
group, or maybe some business process standards such as ebXML, but not the
web services infrastructure. 
 
I have no STRONG objections if others want to put this sort of thing in our
requirements, but I fear that we will be bogged down in details and never
produce anything if we require ourselves to define everything.