[ebxml-cppa] Opinions on Untargeted Issues

[Dale Moberg <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>]

241 CPPID uniqueness. 


Suggest targeting version 2.0. 

A Proposed solution:
The cppid attribute values must be globally unique. The
version attribute value must change 
whenever anything is added to the CPP. 
The cppid must change if anything already present is 
deleted or modified.

Open issue:
Registry has a urn for uuids. Should we show this
option by an example? Should we say we recommend
a urn:uuid:vcxzfd109qj0retc format?

Status: Open. 

Needs consensus on some solution. Needs someone
to write and send to Tony ASAP.

242 Asynchronous interactions using the HTTP binding

"After the sender sends an asynchronous request to the receiver, 
the latter is supposed to return a 200 OK status code. 
How long must the sender wait for this status code?"

Proposed version: 3.0

We should, IMO, not get involved in trying to
define a recommended value for this wait.  The
TCP default is, in effect, unbounded wait. 
Web servers often have a timeout and reply
with a 5xx to deal with a hang in a servlet or
equivalent module. 

"Should we leave this as a local configuration 
parameter or do we need to specify a mutually 
agreed timeout in the CPA?"

Local configuration parameter... but, 

If the question is, "Should we encourage parties
to agree on some value for this timeout by adding
an attribute on the MessagingCharacteristicsElement?"
I think we could save this and target the issue for 3.0.

243 Arvola:  Is there is a real need for
section 8.2 (schemaLocation Attribute) in the CPP/A spec.
On the other hand, if we remove this section, subsequent
section numbers will change and cause havoc to the hard
coded section references that have not been turned into
symbolic references. In particular, I think the CPA
composition appendix have not been converted to use symbolic
section references

Target version 2.0. I believe all these issues have
now had resolutions. Recommend status of resolved.

244 PackageID for MSH level messages

Proposed solution in current draft. 
Recommend status of resolved.

245 Usage of ApplicationCertificateRef 
and ApplicationCertificateRef

Description
"Is this certificateRef limited to the 
use of application level digital
signatures? What about encryption? 

If both are used, the KeyInfo could need to
contain two (or more) certificates. Is this
OK? Certificates (if v3) do have KeyUsage
fields.

"I think sections 8.5.6 and 8.5.7 may need
some beefing up."

Needs more specific direction on what more to add.
Suggest that we target anything more for 3.0.