Comments for PEPPOL Policy for the use of Identifiers v.4
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

View only
 
 
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
1/21/2019Submitter nameMailCountrySectionPage and line numberTypeCommentProposed changePreliminary editors comment
2
1Thieme van Selmts@everbinding.nlNLNo comment on the documentCould you write the document in MarkDown? Then we can easily track the changesNo action now but this is a valid point. OpenPEPPOL should strive for a joint publishing strategy that include tools and processes.
3
2JorgenNODNS-TLS and SHA2 SML lookupOff topic.
This topic relates to the SMP and SML specifications and has nothing to do with the document under review. By updating to the OASIS SMP specification the SHA-256 would be resolved. DNSSEC (is that what is requested?) is not used in BDMSL.
4
3Onnoodhaan@vanmeijel.nlNL2.4page 11, line 122All Participant Identifier values have to be treated case insensitive even if the underlying scheme 122 requires a case sensitive value.I find this a bit strange? Why this deviation from the scheme. It's a technical standard so why not follow it? If can only lead to confusion when a standard is not enforced. And one thing leads to another, and before you know it the policy is foggyThe case insensitivity is an integral part of how the dynamic URLs (B-...) are build. This has been in place since the beginning and caused no major troubles so far.
We are aware that this is not ideal, but it derives from the underlying usage of the SML/DNS systems.
5
4Martin Forsbergmartin.forsberg@ecru.seSEChapter 3 and 4teThe updated specification has changed the way schemeID is to be populated in accordance with PEPPOL BIS Billing 3 and the other upgraded BISes. (using numeric schemeID instead of alfa - 0088 instead of GLN). This introduces a backward incompatible change to all PEPPOL BIS-specifications published prior to the "BIS v3 family". A solution must be found to still allow the existing BISes to be used without violating the policy for identifiers. An alternative could be to say that Policy v4 only applies to BIS3-family and later. Or to state that old BISes are allowed to use Policy v3Comments accepted. A note on the backwards compatibility was introduced.
Chapter 2.1.4 "Relation to PEPPOL BIS versions 1 and 2" was added
6
5Klaus LüttichKlaus.luettich@governikus.deDESections 2.3, 3.2, 4.1lines 89-91, 244ffXML-Namespaces in Examples are not introduced: "ram", "rsm", "cac", "csb"Introduce all Namespaces in one place and use them consistently throughout the document.Chapter 1.3 with all used namespace URIs was added
7
6Klaus LüttichKlaus.luettich@governikus.deDETreatment of idenitfiers as case-sensitive or case-insensitive in different usages is not understandable and from my point of view not leading to many missunderstandings or even to inconsistencies. Every idenitfier, which need to be treated at one place as case-insensitive should be treated in all usages as case-insensitive. I would not see any real world usage, where the same identifier in different cases would have different meanings.See comment #3
8
7Klaus LüttichKlaus.luettich@governikus.deDESections 2.2 and 2.3line 68In section 2.3 the term "PEPPOL BIS instance documents" is used which is not introduced in the section 2.2 glossary.

Addtionally the headings of these two sections are misleading. Why is the section explainig the difference between party and participant identifier called glossary? And the next section "Participant vs. Party Identification" does not tell much about the difference but mixes the usage in different contexts.
Clarrification if "business documents" and "PEPPOL BIS instance documents" are the same.

Introduction of more specific section headings.
"PEPPOL BIS instance document" occurrances were changed to "business document".
Chapter "2.2 Glossary" became "2.1.3 Semantic scope"
9
Comments until here were taken into consideration for the final release 4.0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Loading...
Main menu