[cppa-negot] 4/30/2003: Negotiation Simplification

["Monica J. Martin" <monica.martin@sun.com>]

I indicated on today's call I had seen a few comments that may help us in simplification.  However, I am still looking on which list I saw it (don't believe it was CPPA-Negot).

Here are a few relevant negotiation tidbits though:

WS-Reliability 4/28 and 4/29 [snippet extracted]

4/28..... 4.  While WS-RM configuration management is out of scope, the values of NO ACK timer and retry counter will be dependent on Transport binding/ Transport protocol so as to avoid retransmissions at multiple layers

***Suggestion:  at some point (f2f meeting?) we should discuss how configuration setting/ re-configuration is done even if such a capability is not included in the initial WS-RM spec.  At some later time we could define a Header field for a WS-RM (remote) CONFIGURATION message or a CAPABILITY/PARAMETER EXCHANGE message.  The message body would contain the various parameters/MEPs supported.

4/29.......Configuration managment for the counters and timeout parameters is 
already listed in the ws-reliability draft 1 as an issue to be discussed......

Question to CPPA list 4/29 [snippet extracted]
(May elicit some requirements or items that are limited in the scope of negotiation [you can decide]).

.....It seems like a lot of overhead of ensuring corresponding values are 'equal'
when in essence they should have been aggreed upon when the CPA was made.
If the CPA was constructed with only one set of reliable delivery, security,
endpoint values that was aggreed upon at creation, rather than having two
sets of values that 'should' match up, there would never have to be a check
(maybe I am dreaming)........

I did see one other related comment but have not located it yet.

Monica