[ebxml-cppa-negot] RE: [ebxml-cppa] Ordering dependencies innegotiation

[Dale Moberg <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>]

Marty notes
"The negotiable items may not be able to be negotiated in an arbitrary
order
because there may be dependencies among them that fix the order of
negotiation. Security aspects of some of the protocols may be one
example.
Certificate details cannot be negotiated until it has been agreed that
certificate-based security will be used for message exchanges.   Any
ordering dependencies will have to be expressed in the NDD.  Ordering
dependencies also mean that a counter offer will omit items that cannot
be
negotiated until after the items in that counter offer agre agreed to."


If parties came to agree (in a NDD allowable way) to use digital
enveloping
but omitted both SecurityDetails for the sender's TrustAnchors and
omitted
the certificate of the receiver, would that mean that we had an
inconsistent
CPA or just an incomplete one? My view is that it would be incomplete. 

The dependencies I think to be worth documenting and worrying about
are ones where actual incompatibilities would exist because of
incompatible values in parts of the CPA.

But it is admittedly a little hard to distinguish these dependencies. If
the
BusinessProcessCharacteristics for data confidentiality included the
"transient"
value, but the TransportSecurity was missing, is it incompatible or
incomplete?
I suppose IPSEC might be used, and the CPPA TC
has not standardized how to agree on that. Technically, however, the
parties might want to use IPSEC for data confidentiality on the wire,
and so a missing TransportSecurity would not conflict with a "transient"
value for data confidentiality.