Re: [ebxml-cppa-negot] BPSS comments

["Himagiri(Hima) Mukkamala" <himagiri@sybase.com>]

I just sent BPSS which is different compared to the suggestion made.
As BPSS supports multiple responses, why not send the
double signed CPA as response if the final CPA sent 
was signed. This makes the BPSS simpler.

-hima

Martin W Sachs wrote:
> 
> This is to clarify one of my replies below, regarding return of the CPA
> with the second signature.
> 
> If it is not feasible to include a test for the presence of the first
> signature in the BPSS instance, then I suggest the following:
> 
> 1.  Responding Business Activity "Final_CPA_BT_RespBA" sends one of two
> response messages:
> - "CPA Final Response Doc" if the received CPA was not signed
> - "Signed CPA Response Doc" if the received CPA was signed.
> 
> 2.  The normative text in the specification states the above rule.
> 
> 3. If the received CPA was not signed, the choreography ends (success).
> 
> 4. If the received CPA was signed, a transition takes place to a new
> business transaction in which the recipient of the signed CPA returns the
> double-signed CPA to the other Party (requesting businss transaction).
> 
> 5. The responding business transaction in (4) indicates success ("CPA Final
> Response Doc") or failure ("CPA Reject Doc").  I'm not sure what reject
> conditions would be possible in (4) but I think it's a good idea to include
> that possiblity.
> 
> Regards,
> Marty
> 
> *************************************************************************************
> 
> Martin W. Sachs
> IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
> P. O. B. 704
> Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
> 914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
> Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
> Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
> *************************************************************************************
> ----- Forwarded by Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM on 10/07/2002 03:08 PM -----
> 
>                       Martin W Sachs
>                                                To:      "Himagiri(Hima) Mukkamala" <himagiri@sybase.com>
>                       10/07/2002 02:37         cc:      ebxml-cppa-negot@lists.oasis-open.org
>                       PM                       From:    Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
>                                                Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa-negot] BPSS comments(Document link: Martin W. Sachs)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hima,
> 
> Here are my replies  (MWS:).
> 
> Can we use CPA Reject doc for this reject case. Depending on what we agree
> on, I can change the BPSS and add success and failure conditions for
> CPA_Final_BT
> 
> MWS:  I believe that we can used CPA Reject Doc for this case (rejection of
> the final CPA).
> 
> Can we capture this in the document or should we add this in the process
> definition. I’m comfortable with adding it in the document where we can
> essentially say “If the NDD has a field of singed set and the CPA itself
> sent in the CPA FINAL DOC has a signature, CPA Response Doc should have a 2
> second signature if the CPA is acceptable”
> 
> MWS:  If you would prefer, we can define the test for the presence of the
> first signture as normative text in the document but I believe that the
> actual return of the CPA with two signatures should be captured as a BPSS
> transaction that follows from the receipt of the CPA with the first
> signature.
> 
> These conditions identify the fact that success from “fromBusinessState”
> indicates the success of the collaboration. Same for failure. No condition
> expressions indicate that any response would leave it the
> BusinessTransaction in a state of success.
> 
> MWS:  OK.  I will capture this point in the explanatory text.
> 
> Going back to your comment (1.1) We may need to add a condition expression
> that indicates the fact that success in only when a “CPA Final Response
> Doc” is sent but not when “CPA Final Reject Doc” is sent.
> 
> MWS:  Yes, we need the above.
> 
> I assume we use different terminology just for explicit differentiation.
> They all might refer to same standard CPA location.
> 
> MWS:  My comment may not have been understood. We have been discussing
> allowing for either attaching the actual document (CPA template, NDD, final
> CPA) to the message or including its URL in the message.  Is it practical
> to allow both options?  If so, does anything have to be explicitly included
> either in the BPSS instance or in the NCPA?
> 
> I think when reference to ID is made, it’s explicitly named as
> “<element>id” or “<element>idRef” in the BPSS spec. Any specific places
> where it’s not explicit? Let me know and I can send a comment on BPSS spec
> to WG.
> 
> MWS:  I agree that the BPSS distinguishes use of name attribute from use of
> ID attribute.  I was only asking whether there is a specific reason for
> using one or the other.
> 
> Regards,
> Marty
> 
> *************************************************************************************
> 
> Martin W. Sachs
> IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
> P. O. B. 704
> Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
> 914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
> Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
> Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
> *************************************************************************************
> 
> 
>                       "Himagiri(Hima)
>                       Mukkamala"               To:       Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
>                       <himagiri@sybase.        cc:       ebxml-cppa-negot@lists.oasis-open.org
>                       com>                     Subject:  Re: [ebxml-cppa-negot] BPSS comments
> 
>                       10/07/2002 12:14
>                       PM
> 
> 
> 
> Marty,
> 
> Attaching document with my comments highlighted..
> 
> thanks
> hima
> 
> Martin W Sachs wrote:
> 
> > My comments on the 9/16 BPSS instance are attached.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Marty
> >
> > (See attached file: BPSS.comments.30Sept02.doc)
> >
> >
> *************************************************************************************
> 
> >
> > Martin W. Sachs
> > IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
> > P. O. B. 704
> > Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
> > 914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
> > Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
> > Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
> >
> *************************************************************************************
> 
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >                                  Name: BPSS.comments.30Sept02.doc
> >    BPSS.comments.30Sept02.doc    Type: WINWORD File (application/msword)
> >                              Encoding: BASE64
> 
> #### BPSS.comments.30Sept02.doc has been removed from this note on October
> 07 2002 by Martin W Sachs