[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [ebxml-msg] Re: issue 19
Doug, Yes, [1] is the current draft. Getting people to look at a large draft is a problem, I am sure, in every team. You can expect that the BPSS instance and negotiation CPA will not change much between now and submission. There might be some detail changes in the NCPA but until people look at it I can't be sure. The main problem in the draft is that the people working on the negotiation descriptor document (document that points to what is negotiable in the proposed CPA) and the message schemas haven't completed their work yet. The intermediate mail that you refer to is more material on the negotiation messages. Please note that the sub-team's goal for the NCPA is that it should not have to be negotiated. How well we have met that goal can only be determined by people reviewing the NCPA and commenting. We have a target of late December to complete a draft that would be submitted as version 1. 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 ************************************************************************************* Doug Bunting <db134722@iplanet To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS .com> cc: ebXML Messaging <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject: Re: issue 19 10/28/2002 04:03 PM Thanks Marty, Are you referring to the attachment to the email found at [1] because you mention in [2] that it hasn't received any discussion within the CPP/A team to date? (I did notice one intermediate email containing a proposed large change.) Should we assume things will change substantially in the near future or wait for a more stable version? With either answer, we may be able to close issue 19 with editorial changes to our specification (even our Errata sheet for version 2.0) that reference the material the CPP/A team publishes. We should certainly review that material and provide comments to Marty and his team. Is that the way we'd like to move forward or do we have some requirement for this information to be part of our specification? thanx again, doug [1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-cppa-negot/200210/msg00028.html [2] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-cppa-negot/200210/msg00031.html Martin W Sachs wrote: > The CPPA negotiation subteam has a draft CPA for the negotiation process. > It supports the negotiation BPSS instance that this subteam has developed. > > A draft of the negotiation specification has been posted to the > ebxml-cppa-negot list and can be reviewed in its archive. > > 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 > ************************************************************************************* ...
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC