[ebxml-cppa] Thurs Dec. 13 CPPA Voting Meeting and Last December call.

[Dale Moberg <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>]

Thanks to David Smiley and Mercator
for hosting our December calls.


When:		Thursday, 12/6 - 12/13 - 12/20/01
Time:		11:00 AM - 12:00 Noon - EST
USA#	 	888-807-9834
Intl#		212-547-0484
Passcode:	73627

Agenda 

Additions to agenda?

Administrative or Procedural Tasks:

 1. Brian Hayes indicates that a Bay Area hosting of the third face to
face
    is possible January 28 to January 30. Details from Brian?
 2. Tony will present procedures for submitting your contributions
    to a merged draft. Tony and Dale will review the current inventory
    (by element or attribute) of additions or changes. There will be
    other edits needed that the full issues list will identify.
 3. Arvola has submitted a table and commentary on how an ebMS can
    make use of information in a CPA. Various proposals on where
    to include this information have been made. We need to coordinate
    with Messaging on where this quite useful information goes. 
    Some options: appendix to CPPA spec, standalone CPPA document,
    jointly approved document (will need to find procedure for doing 
    this), appendix to Messaging. Our TC can carry out only the appendix
    or standalone options. I can raise the joint doc option at the JC.
    What is the TC's preference?

Subteam reports:

 Brian (BPSS align), Arvola (Messaging), Hima (both IIC and
Service/Action), 
 Marty update on Negotiation, Dale on Security.

Continuing issues:

 l.  CPA: which side of the delivery channel contains the controlling
  values for non repudiation of origin and non repudiation of receipt,
e.g?
  More general problem: Delivery channels as involving receiving
characteristic:
  not strictly true (e.g., SendingProtocol). What changes or
clarifications
  are needed for the 1.1 version. Who wants to contribute by writing or
reviewing?
 2. Arvola's problem on synchronous reply mode plus AckRequested for
Response.
   Consider a BP request and response collaboration, using HTTP
synchReply
   mode of both (messaging signals, BP signals, and BP response ), where
the
   responding message also contains an AckRequested indication. This
means on 
   one HTTP connection, there is to be the Request message, the Response
message
   and a third message with the messaging layer signal (Acknowledgment).
Is this
   allowed? The HTTP 1.1 protocol allows it technically. Would it work
for common
   implementational frameworks such as servlets? Certainly there are
transport
   protocols (BEEP, for example), that would be happy with this
interaction pattern.
   How do we indicate the agreement to do this? (Can an example be
   constructed?) 

Residual Carryover Meetings

 Numerous but we won't have time.

CPPA inventory progress chart.doc