Re: [ebxml-msg] Proposed "idempotent" parameter and attribute and CPAelement

[Dan Weinreb <dlw@exceloncorp.com>]

At the meeting today, we decided that the word "idempotent" should be
avoided, since there is too much disagreement/confusion/controversy
about what it means.  Therefore, we're sticking with the phrase
"duplicateElimination", and it's our understanding that the CPA
will be changed to also use "duplicateElimination" in place of
"idempotency".

The main thing that needs to be fixed in the current discussion of
duplicateElimination is the question of how the message header element
interacts with what the CPA has to say on the matter.  This is a
special case of the general issue of reconciling the CPA and the
message header.  That general issue was debated and voted on yesterday
(see minutes); it needs to be worked out with the CPA group, and then
section on duplicateElimination will be brought into conformance with
what is decided.

-- Dan