Maintenance issue for 2.1 CPA RE: [ebxml-cppa-negot] Issues for Discussion

["Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>]

>1.(From Sacha) There is no schema for a CPA template. What is a valid 
>CPA
>template? As once discussed a CPA only has one deliveryChannel element 
>whereas there can be more in a CPA template to keep the preference ... 
>Probably the CPPA schema is valid for a CPA template but ... not realy
... 
>Glossary says that a CPA template is a CPA with open fields, hence a
CPA 
>template will never be a valid CPA. A CPA template cannot be validated,

>can it? Maybe a CPA template does not have to be validated ...

MWS: It is intended that a CPA template conform to the CPPA schema. I 
believe that somewhere in the draft spec., it says that open fields must

have values that enable the CPA template to be valid for the CPPA
schema. 
The NDD indicates which values will be replaced by the results of
negotiation.

>2. (From Sacha)  Line 250: I think the CPA should have an attribute 
>with
>possible values, such as "CPA template" or a "final CPA" or simply a 
>"temporary-test-something-that-looks-like-a-CPA-and-might-become-a-CPA"
.

MWS:  This might be useful.  This is primarily a CPA issue. If it is
done, 
the negotiation spec. must include rules for changing the value of that 
attribute when the negotiation results in an agreed CPA.

statusValueType is the simple xsd data type for CPA/Status/@value, which
is an enumeration:

<xsd:enumeration value="agreed"/>
<xsd:enumeration value="signed"/>
<xsd:enumeration value="proposed"/>

We can add to this

<xsd:enumeration value="template"/>

with backwards compatibility.

Would this be a resolution?