1/22/2004: CPPA-Negot Draft Comments

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

Updated my line / section numbers as requested by Marty.

In addition, in the 'meeting' on Wednesday, I also indicated that our 
small team should work with BPSS and WSPL (XACML) if possible on any 
cross-specification items, even if informally.  I've identified some of 
the opportunity areas for simplication that references WSPL, and there 
are some areas that touch on ebBP work items (like role reversal and 
validation scope).

Is anyone planning to attend New Orleans OASIS meeting and perhaps we 
could discuss.

Thanks.
November 2003 version of CPPA Negotiation

Section 3.4
To Dale's point re: versioning, we need to discuss the possibility of multiple namespace
and business document references for a single BPSS (See discussion related to multiple
namespaces and documents used for BPSS schema validation).  How does this affect negotiation?
(Post 1.x BPSS item)

Section 4
Line 321 Are we not allowing another or multiple process definitions or fragments?
Line 332 If we do not address looping at some level in version 1, do we recognize that 
deadlocks could occur? What about retries (like a loop)? Retry until condition is true (sent).

Section 4/5
Is it possible to simplify with the NDD to combine with CPA template?

Section 5.1
Suggest we say NCPA Template Instance or something like that - it is very confusing
to say NCPA, NCPA template and then you have an instance of an NCPA Template (=NCPA?).
This is equally confusing in later lines that talk about the template being someone else's
that you use. Is this an area of simplification?

Section 5.4/5.5
Suggest we only put a sentence in this section and perhaps merge discovery aspects
with the WSDL description that Dale suggested in an appendix. This helps separate what is or is not
within scope of negotiation process.

Section 6.1
This may be an area for simplification where we indicate at least in the first release
that a draft CPA is not negotiable. I am not advocating this approach just looking for options
to limit what is initially negotiated, within reason.

Equating draft CPA to a CPA template may also be confusing.  We may wish to consider if
we do allow either to be negotiated that any differences during the negotiation process be explicitly
defined.

Line 575
Is not that matching done with an algorithm? Could consider use of WSPL as a simplification of matching
(boolean matching).

Section 6.3
Comment: Keep composition and negotiation separate to increase opportunity for simplification.
Can matching assist in taking two CPPs and draw draft CPA using WSPL?

Section 7.1
a. Would not the NDD also include the values provided in the CPP or CPA template (if they
are valid or default values)? b. Brings up if these values need that attribute to infer they
are valid (could we use item status on Negotiation Content)?

Reference (line 602-603)
In general, since the negotiability details are provided in the NDD, it SHOULD be acceptable
to include any valid arbitrary value or choice for a negotiable item in the pre-negotiation
CPP or CPA Template.  >>In other words, the NDD overrides what is in the pre-negotiation CPP
or CPA Template for all negotiable items<<."

Line 652
Would we have a condition where actually the negotiation is synchronous?
Same but converse question on line 681-682.

Section 9
Open opportunity for simplification, again, by separating negotiation from composition.
Composition could be handled by an offline process.

Section 9.2
Look at the openXchange work on BP matching to see if this could provide an input to
business process negotiation. See http://www.tno.nl/instit/fel/ts/exp/e-business.html.

Roles and role reversal - this is currently one for close redress by ebBP team.

Section 9.3
Opportunity to use WSPL

Section 9.6
May have to broader scoped in the future to allow negotiation other than what is exclusively
in CPP/A (if WS-Addressing gets into a standards body for example or a standards-based
solution emerges).

General comment
Section 9.7
Could we look on simplification in the security aspects?  For example, either an endpoint proposes
self-certification specifies the CPA template would include the required security parameters (default
values) and restrict them from negotiation, or could they be set using tools that make a finite set
of choices that dictate what the underlying values would be (restricted choice or negotiation). Limited
choice extrapolates other values, based on the preferences and criteria set in the NDD.

Section 9.8
Line 963
Reference: PartyRef document negotiation out of scope
If there are dependencies how do we get to final signoff without them? Would we need to have PartyRef signoff?

Section 10.1
Are there any potential requirements to pass to Reg/Rep?

Section 10.2, 10.3
Consider if WSPL could be used here (such as simple matching).

Section 11.1.7
Could the business process business document be a type that can be selected or defined
by the implementor to allow for other business process technology.  This may have an 
impact on the other dependencies between CPPA and BPSS but is a natural progression for
them both.

Section 11.1.8
May consider having some attributes that can help ensure the latest template or reference
is made available.  One impact is that two CPA template may be available and both
valid but used with different partners for different reasons, or conditions with one
partner. I don't know if this is a current case seen by CPPA.

Section 12.3
Line 1618
Shouldn't the allowable state be defined in the BPSS instance? Otherwise, actual state may be held
in the BSI and made available. Isn't negotiation just another business process? BSI can track
state and be available to CPA negotiation process (implementation details).

Section 12.4
Can the offer identifier point to any other protocol to provide the conversation ID?
Can this extensibility be accommodated?

Section 12.5
Ensure that signed cannot be acquired until agreed is true.

General
Use of WSPL for simple pattern matching to shorten the negotiation process. This perhaps
could be an automated initial negotiation that allows for the minimum set of agreed
upon aspects within the parties to get to the CPA template and NDD for the difference.

Given the BPSS matching work by openXchange, this may be able to defer more of the negotiation
associated with the business process document.

Section 12.12
Third-party accommodation should be discussed with BPSS. We are looking at the possibility
for agent or proxy (also WS-Chor is doing the same).

Section 12.13.1
This could be simpler to understand as an UML activity diagram. This is difficult to read and
understand.	

Potential simplification
a. getting to a minimal CPA template and NDD 
b. pattern matching using WSPL (simplification and enroute to web services
c. doing the agreed and signed in the same action - may require changes for support with
BPSS (12.11)
d. Allow for condition where draft CPA is not negotatiable.
e. Security aspects

Potential synchronization points with BPSS:
a. Section 3.4
b. Section 4 - allowing another or multiple process definitions
c. Section 9.2 - roles and role reversal
d. negotiation of business process - relevant elements