Hi Pim,
I am still working on my review. I do already have one suggestion however. I think it might be useful to split the current document into two or even three separate specs. One describing the AU framework, maybe specific ones for bindings to transport protocols and another one for the certificate update. I think this will create a more flexible framework. If there is requirement for update of another part of an agreement this could more easily be specified in a new profile.
Hi Ernst Jan,
Thanks for the feedback. As for your comments at the end of
section 3, there is a distinction between "what changes" (e.g. a
certificate) and "what needs to change" as a result of the
change. The answer to the second question is
implementation-dependent, e.g. an update for ebMS2 may require a
change to (and reload of) a CPA if the party uses CPA, but there
are ebMS2 products that don't use CPA and/or that have a different
way of storing certificate configuration. This is up to the
receiver, the sender shouldn't need to be aware. I will try to
clarify this.
You are right that there are other types of configuration
updates, such as the URL of the messaging server or IP addresses
to be configured in firewalls being the common ones (at least in
my experience). The schema extensibility makes this quite easy,
and who knows a future update of the specification could
standardize these updates. As the immediate need is for
certificate updates, the idea was to focus on those first.
As for using AU for CPA updates, this could work for simple
changes, and if both parties are known to use CPA. But CPPA3
greatly simplifies CPA formation from CPPs, so the alternative
could be to just re-merge with an updated CPP and form a new CPA,
and define a similar message-based protocol for requesting a CPA.
E-Health in Norway (represented on this TC) have been using this
concept in production, with ebMS2/CPPA2, for over a decade, and
can provide input to such a protocol.
I will provide an updated version in the next few days
incorporating any comments received until then. And if there are
no objections, engage with TC Admin a few days later to move to
CSD/PR ballot.
Kind Regards,
Pim
On 09/03/2015 10:46 AM, Ernst Jan van Nigtevecht wrote:
Dear members of the ebCore mailinglist,
Please find attached some feedback and comments on the Agreement Update
specification.
With kind regards
Ernst Jan van Nigtevecht
Pim van der Eijk wrote:
/Submitter's message/
Specification:
- New content covering draft CPPA 3.0.
- Editorial clean-up.
- Error codes and descriptions.
- Acknowledgments.
Schema:
- Some typos corrected.
- HTML documentation regenerated.
-- Mr. Pim van der Eijk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
|