RE: [ebxml-cppa-negot] Message Content: outline

[Jean Zheng <Jzheng@vitria.com>]

see comments in <jean></jean> below:

 - Initiating Message: What is the purpose of the CPP IDs? Don't we expect
the CPPs of the parties to be included in the CPA or CPA template,
respetively?

<jean> Each party could have multiple CPPs out there, and having the CPPId
will help the receiving party (of the CPA or CPA template) to get a quick
idea which CPP has been used to compose this CPA or CPA template. </jean>

- To come back to last week's discussion: What is the unerlying state model
of a CPA (proposed, rejected, etc.). I presume this needs to be clarified
in the context of the negotiation process discussion.
<jean> i think your assumption is correct that it needs help from
negotiation
process definition </jean>

- On the signature and acceptance procedure: Do we assume that every
proposal is signed? If we want both signatures on an accepted document, the
first "Accept", containing the signed document, has to be replied to with a
message containing the counter signature.

<jean> i was thinking that each CPA proposal or CPA counter proposal shall
be
signed, once the other party agrees on the proposed CPA, it simply needs to
sign the same doc again to make it official.  </jean>

Thanks,
Jean