[ebxml-cppa] Analysis of assigned issues 227, 57, &215

[Jean Zheng <Jzheng@vitria.com>]

227: When a CPA has included "by value" certificates under the KeyInfo
elements, and these certificates expire before its CPA expires, we
should have a non-normative statement that (deployment of runtime
sotfware)software MAY detect the use of an expired certificate and
signal a warning  or that CPA composition software may also warn of
this condition during composition. If the CPA signing certificates
expire before the CPA, software SHOULD warn of that condition and
suggest aligning the expiration times. (How alignment is attained is
implementation dependent.)

<Jean> Status shall be "resolved".  It has been explained in Section 
9.4.2 "End Element" of ebcpp version 1.10.</Jean>

57: It has been suggested that a negotiation of PartyId type may be 
desirable since a given Party may not be capable of interpreting all 
possible PartyId types. One possibility is to add an element by which 
a Party can indicate which PartyId types it understands.

<Jean> Status shall be "Resolved".
Currently PartyID does have an optional Attr. "Type" (as current
discussion thread has indicated) in Section 8.4.1 PartyID Element.  So I
will vote for "resolved" status of this issue in CPPA.  However, 
we could transfer "Negotiation of PartyId type" part of the issue to the
negotiation subteam. Just to keep it under consideration during CPA 
negotiation.</Jean>

215: Is the name for ProcessSpecification element tied to any element 
in BPSS instance document? Reopened: as discussed during the Feb 7 call,

the spec should state that the name attribute is IMPLIED and
characterize 
its value as informative only

<Jean>Status shall be "Open". Section 8.4.4.1 Name Attribute, Currently
it states that the name attribute MUST be set to the name for
corresponding
BPSS instance.</Jean>