...

Section 4.2: Port numbers are not mentioned at all in CEF AS4 Profile. The limitation to port 443 should be removed. But avoid opening all ports for outgoing traffic, it was decided to limit the port to be 443 or in the range 44300 (incklusive) to 44399 (inclusive) so that a) outgoing ports can be limited and b) non-standard ports can be used.

Comment #5: Section 4.5 Party identification: Martin Forsberg has requested if "PMode.Initiator.Role and Responder. Role could be assigned more generic identifiers". It was decided that he should that Martin Forsberg should be contacted to elaborate on this.

...

Decisions

1. Version 0.9.2: remove itthe section
2. ID #1: 4.2. Configuration of Transport Level Security (TLS): Allow port 443 and port range 44300-44399.
3. ID #3: 4.7. Use of PEPPOL PKI: Add the sentence "AS4 message level encryption MUST be used even though TLS is used."
4. Section 4.4 Feedback when receiver is not serviced: Explain what MSH means and that the meaning of "Payload" is the SBDH. Maybe find a better term for "custom validations" as it might be misinterpreted.
   
5. ID #4: Section 4.4 Feedback when receiver is not serviced: Sentence number 2, change it to "If a MSH is able to validate the SBDH payload inside the AS4 User Message during the ebMS message processing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Access Point includes the check on the addressee."
6. ID #5: Section 4.5 Party Identification: Ask Martin Forsberg to Elaborate on why he has requested if "PMode.Initiator.Role and Responder. Role could be assigned more generic identifiers".
7. ID #6: Section 4.6 Service, action and role: Replace "PEPPOL BIS" with "business documents"
8. ID #7: see decision on ID #3
9. ID #8: Section 4.10 Message packaging: Add sentence that "compress first, then encrypt"
10. ID #9: Section 4.2 Configuration of Transport Level Security (TLS): Add sentence "TLS v1.2 MUST be supported. Older versions (SSL v2, SSL v3, TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1) MUST NOT be used. Versions newer than TLS v1.2 might be used upon mutual agreement via the TLS handshake."
11. ID #10: Chapter 4.1 Exchange patterns: See decision to ID #9.
12. ID #11: Chapter 4.4 Feedback when receiver is not serviced: rejected
13. ID #12: Chapter 6.2 SMP transport profile identifier: Split chapter 6.2 into 2 separate ones: a) SMP transport profile identifier Stating only the transportProfileIdentifier (please note the typo in the current version - it should be peppol-transport-as4-v2_0) b) AS4 and dynamic discovery Outline that new P-Modes may need to be created per document exchange and outline what SMP response values fit where in a PMode. Also a note that this feature is non-standard AS4 might be worthwhile.
14. ID #13: Chapter 6.2 SMP transport profile identifier: See decision to ID #12.
15. ID #14: Chapter 5 P-Mode parameters: Align chapter 4.5 with Table 7 - the inconsistencies need to be resolved.
16. ID #15: Chapter 4.9 Use of SBDH: Issue: https://issues.oasis-open.org/projects/EBXMLMSG/issues/EBXMLMSG-2. Include in the discussion with Martin Forsberg on ID #5; suggestion to remove the attribute "type" under the precondition that it is otherwise possible to clearly identify that the role is "PEPPOL AccessPoint"
17. ID #16: 
18. ID #17: Please add the sentence from PEPPOL AS4 profile V1: As the eb:ConversationId element is required it MUST always have a value. If no value is included in the submission of the business document to the Access Point, the Access Point MUST set the value of eb:ConversationId to “1” as specified in section 4.3 of [ebMS3CORE].
19. ID #18: See response to ID#12.
20. ID #19: Remove Philip Helger from the contribution/author list.

Proposal

-- EoD

Attachments

...