[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: 1/22/2004: CPPA-Negot Draft Comments
Updated my line / section numbers as requested by Marty. In addition, in the 'meeting' on Wednesday, I also indicated that our small team should work with BPSS and WSPL (XACML) if possible on any cross-specification items, even if informally. I've identified some of the opportunity areas for simplication that references WSPL, and there are some areas that touch on ebBP work items (like role reversal and validation scope). Is anyone planning to attend New Orleans OASIS meeting and perhaps we could discuss. Thanks.
November 2003 version of CPPA Negotiation Section 3.4 To Dale's point re: versioning, we need to discuss the possibility of multiple namespace and business document references for a single BPSS (See discussion related to multiple namespaces and documents used for BPSS schema validation). How does this affect negotiation? (Post 1.x BPSS item) Section 4 Line 321 Are we not allowing another or multiple process definitions or fragments? Line 332 If we do not address looping at some level in version 1, do we recognize that deadlocks could occur? What about retries (like a loop)? Retry until condition is true (sent). Section 4/5 Is it possible to simplify with the NDD to combine with CPA template? Section 5.1 Suggest we say NCPA Template Instance or something like that - it is very confusing to say NCPA, NCPA template and then you have an instance of an NCPA Template (=NCPA?). This is equally confusing in later lines that talk about the template being someone else's that you use. Is this an area of simplification? Section 5.4/5.5 Suggest we only put a sentence in this section and perhaps merge discovery aspects with the WSDL description that Dale suggested in an appendix. This helps separate what is or is not within scope of negotiation process. Section 6.1 This may be an area for simplification where we indicate at least in the first release that a draft CPA is not negotiable. I am not advocating this approach just looking for options to limit what is initially negotiated, within reason. Equating draft CPA to a CPA template may also be confusing. We may wish to consider if we do allow either to be negotiated that any differences during the negotiation process be explicitly defined. Line 575 Is not that matching done with an algorithm? Could consider use of WSPL as a simplification of matching (boolean matching). Section 6.3 Comment: Keep composition and negotiation separate to increase opportunity for simplification. Can matching assist in taking two CPPs and draw draft CPA using WSPL? Section 7.1 a. Would not the NDD also include the values provided in the CPP or CPA template (if they are valid or default values)? b. Brings up if these values need that attribute to infer they are valid (could we use item status on Negotiation Content)? Reference (line 602-603) In general, since the negotiability details are provided in the NDD, it SHOULD be acceptable to include any valid arbitrary value or choice for a negotiable item in the pre-negotiation CPP or CPA Template. >>In other words, the NDD overrides what is in the pre-negotiation CPP or CPA Template for all negotiable items<<." Line 652 Would we have a condition where actually the negotiation is synchronous? Same but converse question on line 681-682. Section 9 Open opportunity for simplification, again, by separating negotiation from composition. Composition could be handled by an offline process. Section 9.2 Look at the openXchange work on BP matching to see if this could provide an input to business process negotiation. See http://www.tno.nl/instit/fel/ts/exp/e-business.html. Roles and role reversal - this is currently one for close redress by ebBP team. Section 9.3 Opportunity to use WSPL Section 9.6 May have to broader scoped in the future to allow negotiation other than what is exclusively in CPP/A (if WS-Addressing gets into a standards body for example or a standards-based solution emerges). General comment Section 9.7 Could we look on simplification in the security aspects? For example, either an endpoint proposes self-certification specifies the CPA template would include the required security parameters (default values) and restrict them from negotiation, or could they be set using tools that make a finite set of choices that dictate what the underlying values would be (restricted choice or negotiation). Limited choice extrapolates other values, based on the preferences and criteria set in the NDD. Section 9.8 Line 963 Reference: PartyRef document negotiation out of scope If there are dependencies how do we get to final signoff without them? Would we need to have PartyRef signoff? Section 10.1 Are there any potential requirements to pass to Reg/Rep? Section 10.2, 10.3 Consider if WSPL could be used here (such as simple matching). Section 11.1.7 Could the business process business document be a type that can be selected or defined by the implementor to allow for other business process technology. This may have an impact on the other dependencies between CPPA and BPSS but is a natural progression for them both. Section 11.1.8 May consider having some attributes that can help ensure the latest template or reference is made available. One impact is that two CPA template may be available and both valid but used with different partners for different reasons, or conditions with one partner. I don't know if this is a current case seen by CPPA. Section 12.3 Line 1618 Shouldn't the allowable state be defined in the BPSS instance? Otherwise, actual state may be held in the BSI and made available. Isn't negotiation just another business process? BSI can track state and be available to CPA negotiation process (implementation details). Section 12.4 Can the offer identifier point to any other protocol to provide the conversation ID? Can this extensibility be accommodated? Section 12.5 Ensure that signed cannot be acquired until agreed is true. General Use of WSPL for simple pattern matching to shorten the negotiation process. This perhaps could be an automated initial negotiation that allows for the minimum set of agreed upon aspects within the parties to get to the CPA template and NDD for the difference. Given the BPSS matching work by openXchange, this may be able to defer more of the negotiation associated with the business process document. Section 12.12 Third-party accommodation should be discussed with BPSS. We are looking at the possibility for agent or proxy (also WS-Chor is doing the same). Section 12.13.1 This could be simpler to understand as an UML activity diagram. This is difficult to read and understand. Potential simplification a. getting to a minimal CPA template and NDD b. pattern matching using WSPL (simplification and enroute to web services c. doing the agreed and signed in the same action - may require changes for support with BPSS (12.11) d. Allow for condition where draft CPA is not negotatiable. e. Security aspects Potential synchronization points with BPSS: a. Section 3.4 b. Section 4 - allowing another or multiple process definitions c. Section 9.2 - roles and role reversal d. negotiation of business process - relevant elements
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]