RE: Two Comments on Negotiation Draft (high level)

[James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@mmiec.com>]

At 11:13 AM 8/29/01, Collier, Timothy R wrote:
>Along the lines of extreme minimalism, what is the minimum we think should
>be allowed for a CPA?  * * *  maybe their CPP is a "take it or leave it, 
>only one
>choice for each" CPA.  Or is it possible that the CPA could be reduced to a
>WSDL?  Should the negotiation account for no negotiation?

1.  Minimum negotiation.
I have never heard anyone say that a minimum of ACCESSION to negotiation 
should be required.  However, it may be appropriate to require RECEIPT of 
CPA negotiation proposals.  There's a good argument for EXCLUDING a "we 
don't negotiate, so take it or leave it" bit or parameter from the CPA 
spec.  This choice essentially requires only that CPA proposers either 
affirmatively reject counterproposals, or let them die by default from 
timeout or similar failure to effectively assent.

2.  Third parties.
Sometimes X and Y will elect to use a CPA generated by Z.  It's an 
analogous product to implementation guides, and to me interesting because 
it opens the question of who's liable when the I.G. doesn't I. as the G. 
says it will.

Our mental model for CPA negotiation seems to be that users will 
interrogate proposed CPAs, to see if the processes are implementable and 
satisfactory -- or fail to do so at their own peril.  The history of 
e-commerce suggests that some users will buy or borrow that assurance, in 
abridged form, from someone else.

Regards  Jamie