Re: [ebxml-cppa] RE: [ebxml-msg] CPA & MS overriding parameters

[Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com>]

Suresh:

>1. There was a "signed" attribute in your first proposal which seems
>to have disappeared in the second one. Was that a typo?

The "signed" attribute in my first proposal has disappeared from the second
one because it has been replaced by an

        AckSignatureRequested

element. This was done in response to Doug Bunting's feedback:

"I like what's been described as two separate Boolean values for
AckRequested in the CPA -- one that controls whether acknowledgements are
supported at all and another that controls whether any supported
acknowledgments may be signed.  This proposal seems to eliminate that
separation.  A CPA will not be able to say "acknowledgments are required for
this delivery channel and the message will indicate whether signing is
required" or "any requested acknowledgement must be signed".

>2. Please consider "perCPA" instead of "fixed" since we already have
>"perMessage" (unless "fixed" has other semantics)

I agree that "perCPA" is a better enumeration value that "fixed".

>Another problem which may touch upon negotiation is,
>can we have a message that does not require a CPA?
>(don't you need one to bootstrap CPA creation negotiations?)
>Should we have some statement that covers this issue?

I see that Marty has already designated this as a 2.0 issue.

Regards,
-Arvola

-----Original Message-----
From: Damodaran, Suresh <Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com>
To: 'Arvola Chan' <arvola@tibco.com>; 'Tony Fletcher'
<tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com>; ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
<ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>; ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
<ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Monday, November 26, 2001 8:00 AM
Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] RE: [ebxml-msg] CPA & MS overriding parameters


>Arvola,
>
>I read the proposal with much interest. Looks good to me
>based on my current understanding. I have a few minor
>items you may consider.
>
>1. There was a "signed" attribute in your first proposal which seems
>to have disappeared in the second one. Was that a typo?
>
>2. Please consider "perCPA" instead of "fixed" since we already have
>"perMessage" (unless "fixed" has other semantics)
>
>Another problem which may touch upon negotiation is,
>can we have a message that does not require a CPA?
>(don't you need one to bootstrap CPA creation negotiations?)
>Should we have some statement that covers this issue?
>
>Regards,
>-Suresh
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Arvola Chan [mailto:arvola@tibco.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 11:30 AM
>To: Damodaran, Suresh; 'Tony Fletcher'; ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org;
>ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa] RE: [ebxml-msg] CPA & MS overriding parameters
>
>
>Suresh:
>
>Please see my proposal in
>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-msg/200111/msg00253.html
>
>Regards,
>-Arvola
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Damodaran, Suresh <Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com>
>To: 'Tony Fletcher' <tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com>;
>ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>;
>ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org <ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>
>Date: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 8:57 AM
>Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] RE: [ebxml-msg] CPA & MS overriding parameters
>
>
>>I am encouraged and hopeful that a solution to this issue will be found
>>based on the "permessage" idea (as per Dale's earlier email "observer's
>>report").
>>The three cases that Tony outlines below may be used
>>for analysis of individual entries in the CPA.
>>It is not clear how the "permessage" notion will be built into the CPP.
>>I plan to wait to see a clear description of the solution before further
>>commenting.
>>
>>Regards,
>>-Suresh
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Tony Fletcher [mailto:tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com]
>>Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 3:15 AM
>>To: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org; ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
>>Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] RE: [ebxml-msg] CPA & MS overriding parameters
>>
>>
>>Dear All,
>>
>>I would have thought that there are three cases that need to be allowed
for
>>in the CPA:
>>
>>1) The two parties to the CPA agree explicitly or implicitly that a
>>parameter is not specified in the CPA and is to be handled by messaging as
>>per the messaging spec. (which could be implicit, per session, per
message,
>>etc.)
>>
>>2) The two parties to the CPA agree to specify a default value in the
>>CPA
>>which is used if not present in the messaging exchange explicitly, but may
>>be overridden by the use of the messaging service on a per message or per
>>session basis.
>>
>>3) The two parties to the CPA agree to specify the parameter in the CPA
>>and
>>that is the value that shall be used - no messing!
>>
>>The Messaging and CPP/A groups need to agree which out 1), 2) & 3) are
>>appropriate for each parameter of the messaging service.
>>
>>If the messaging group meeting has already passed this point and made a
>>workable agreement then fine - I was only adding to the thread, not
meaning
>>to re-open discussion.
>>
>>Best Regards     Tony
>>A M Fletcher
>>Choreology Ltd., 13 Austin Friars, London EC2N 2JX     UK
>>Tel: +44 (0) 20 76701784         Mobile: +44 (0) 7801 948219
>>tony.fletcher@choreology.com <mailto:tony.fletcher@choreology.com>
>>(Home: amfletcher@iee.org)
>>
>>
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>