[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa] Versioning for CPP: new proposal to drop versionattribute on CPP.
I agree that we should drop the version attribute from the CPP. I have no
insight as to what we should say about the guid.
Regards,
Marty
*************************************************************************************
Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************
Dale Moberg
<dmoberg@cycloneco To: "Cppa (E-mail)" <ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>
mmerce.com> cc:
Subject: [ebxml-cppa] Versioning for CPP: new proposal to drop version
03/22/2002 01:52 attribute on CPP.
PM
Hi,
I am stumped on why we have versioning for a CPP.
The cppid is to supply a unique identifier for a CPP.
For the sake of argument, let's say that this means
that no two CPPs can have the same cppid.
When are CPPs the same? For the sake of argument, let us say
that CPPs are the same when their hash values, for
the purpose of signing, are the same. Conversely, we
have two CPPs when their hash values differ.
So if we changed the version _value_, and left all else
the same in a CPP, we would have two CPPs with different
hash values and the same cppid. This contradicts
our assumption that no two CPPs have the same cppid.
Therefore, we cannot really have _two_ CPPs that differ
only by version number (on the previous assumptions).
So we need to say what it means for CPPs to differ
enough to be different versions, but not differ
enough to warrant having different cppids. I think
this is either a rabbit hole or a rat hole, and
I now think that either
way we should avoid entering therein.
I am now inclined to say we should drop the version attribute
on the CollaborationProtocolProfile element. We should also
just say that the cppid value should be a globally unique
identifier.
Should we say anything about format of that guid?
Should we reference some other standard that has
solved the issue of how collisions
in creation of this identifier are avoided?
If so, does anyone know what standard would be good
to reference here?
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC