ebxml-cppa-negot message

Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa-negot] Some comments from Dale Moberg

From: Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>
To: Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 15:57:03 -0500

My responses to Dale's comments are embedded below (MWS:)

Reminder to all: The next draft that I distribute will continue to contain
all the notes on open
issues. One of our big jobs in the coming months is to work through and
resolve all of
these issues.

Regards,
Marty

*************************************************************************************

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************

Martin W
Sachs/Watson/IBM@ To: ebxml-cppa-negot@lists.oasis-open.org
IBMUS cc:
Subject: [ebxml-cppa-negot] Some comments from Dale Moberg
01/15/2003 06:24
PM

Following are some comments from Dale Moberg

December Comments on Negotiation Draft 0.02 12/09/2002 version. Line
numbers from pdf.

Line 225 Versioning should adhere to the conventions in the CPPA as closely
as possible. Because multiple xsds are involved, however, we will need to
allow each to undergo versioning. A matrix that maintains compatibility
info may be needed relating the BPSS for negotiation, NCPA variants,
Messaging xsd, NDD xsd.

MWS: I am inserting the above point as an open issue.

Line 358 “In order to negotiate parties have to establish NCPA”

I would prefer that we only say that parties behave as if a NCPA is in
place.
That is, the NCPA can very well be virtual. So establishing a NCPA is not
required for negotiation, and I would prefer to have this wording altered.

MWS: I rewrote the material to talk about virtual and real NCPAs.
Lines 360-377
are unchanged but are now an example of deployement of a real NCPA.

MWS: I inserted the following paragraph as an open issue.

We should leave room for both a HTTP POST or SOAP 1.1/1.2 bindings for the
messages exchanged. We should leave room for WSDL descriptions of the
message exchanges construed as services also.
In fact, I would favor having a non-normative appendix with a WSDL for
negotiation eventually.

Line 374- 375 Exchange and deploy before sending draft CPA.

MWS: This comment is addressed by my responses to the comments to lines
225 and 358. Lines 374-375 are now part of the example of deployment of a
real NCPA.

Again I would prefer to say that NCPA needs to be only virtually present.
Successful negotiation (using interoperable conventions) will normally
reflect

MWS: I added a note on the following point to the discussion of the
virtual NCPA.

Obtaining the endpoint may be done out of band or by some discovery
technology such as ebXML Registry or UDDI or …

Line 574 NCPA instance document checked. Hima said some simple parts
missing. I do not think we have documented both async and sync messaging
patterns for negotiation.

MWS: I inserted the above paragraph into the draft as an open issue.

Line 594 NamespaceSupported element -- omit or require issue is raised
here.

MWS: Line 594ff is already the open issue.

Line 603 Syncreply mode in NCPA? Very ebMS specific? We have to be careful
to allow various messaging and transfer protocol bindings and initially
pick one as a default and others as optional. HTTP POST default? SOAP 1.1
default?

MWS: I inserted the above paragraph into the draft as an open issue.

*************************************************************************************

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