RE: [ebxml-cppa-negot] Message Content Update based on last conf call

[Dale Moberg <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>]

Hi Bob,

One "meta-requirement" on CPA negotiation
is that the semi-automated negotiation process converge
rapidly either by failing (and throwing
the process up to humans for resolution)
or succeeding (for the parameters marked
negotiable in a NDD, which iconstrains
what is up for debate). One phenomena
we wish to avoid in the semi-automated "dumb"
negotiation is one in which the sides
just iterate back and forth endlessly
in a "RSA-SHA1" "DSA-MD5" loop (you 
can add some other dimensions of
oscillation, and backtracking, if you want to make
the failure to converge less obvious).

By starting a new transaction, we retain
no history and we do not really have a chance
to switch "sides" on who is constructing
the initial proposal and whose NDD governs
the search for acceptable parameter values.

The Simple Negotiation process builds in no assurance that
each side has a chance to let its NDD and
its draft CPAs come up for consideration.
There are also some "race" conditions that
others can discuss.

The upshot is that the Simple process seems
a bit too simple
to have the desired behavior.

One drawback to the way we are thinking
of things now is that one can respond to
a "request" with another "request," which is
probably outside the current request-response
pattern. We are still seeking BPSS advice on
this situation. Meeting is Wednesday if you
want to help!

Dale Moberg


-----Original Message-----
From: bhaugen [mailto:linkage@interaccess.com]
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 6:27 PM
To: Jean Zheng; ebxml-cppa-negot@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa-negot] Message Content Update based on last
conf call


Re tentative process:  is there some reason that
you abandoned the original idea, which I thought
was to use the ebXML v 1.0 Negotiation Pattern.
That would require each offer in the negotiation
to be enclosed in its own transaction with either
a success, fail or counter-pending post condition.
In other words, each offer could be explicitly
and clearly accepted or rejected.

If you just go back and forth with counter-proposals,
I think it will be more difficult to determine what
was accepted or rejected.  (Which was one of the
ideas behind the Pattern.)

-Bob Haugen

----- Original Message -----
From: Jean Zheng <Jzheng@vitria.com>
To: <ebxml-cppa-negot@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 7:19 PM
Subject: [ebxml-cppa-negot] Message Content Update based on last conf
call


I've made some update to Message Content based on our discussion during
last conference call.
Main Changes are:
1. add in a Security section for "InitiatingCPANegotiation" message.
2. Add in enumerated list for CPA status and reason for rejection.
3. Move Tentative Process section to the end.

Any help in adding more details to any of these sections are very
welcome!  Especially in the Security section.

Thank you!
Jean



----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>