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

[Dale Moberg <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>]

Marty says

"Dale's points are valid and we should document the cases of "incomplete
but
usable" and "incomplete and not usable".  However, that is not my
concern.
The question I am asking is whether some items need to be negotiated in
a
particular order (i.e. that there are ordering dependencies). The
example I
gave was that it may not be useful or possible to negotiate about
certificates before negotiating about how they are to be used. Given our
current rule that negotiable items that have been agreed to shall not be
reopened, there may be cases where order of negotiation is significant.
If
there are ordering dependencies, we will have to invent a way of
expressing
the dependency graph within the NDD (or put it on the post-v1 list)."

I think it would be useless to have certificates for digital signature
and then have an agreement that omitted digital signatures. Should
we worry about preventing this usefulness by insisting on an order
for negotiating items? Maybe so. However,...

Would a NDD status of "conditionally negotiable" be one that would
help us capture the ordering dependencies? That is, the NDD for
TrustAnchors for digital signatures is conditionally negotiable
upon having the isNonRepudiationRequired attribute true... Would
we need boolean combinations for the antecedents of the conditionals?

Dale