[Fwd: RE: comment on TA specification]

[christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: comment on TA specification
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:51:15 -0500
From: Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>
To: "Cunningham, Robert" <CunninghamR@MTMC.ARMY.MIL>
CC: "'Duane Nickull'" <duane@xmlglobal.com>,
knaujok@home.com,ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org,ebXML-Architecture List
<ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org>


(Someone please post this to the TA list.  I am not subscribed to it.)


I disagree with the suggestion.  See my replies embedded below.

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
*************************************************************************************



"Cunningham, Robert" <CunninghamR@MTMC.ARMY.MIL> on 01/18/2001 06:35:04 AM

To:   "'Duane Nickull'" <duane@xmlglobal.com>, Martin W
      Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   knaujok@home.com, ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org, ebXML-Architecture List
      <ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org>
Subject:  RE: comment on TA specification



Addressees,

     I concur with Duane and the Trading Partner (TP) team.  The Military
Traffic Management Command (MTMC), an organization within the US Department
of Defense, would want to submit a CPP.  However, it's higher command to
which it reports, The United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM),
might want to submit it's own CPP.  At what level of the US Federal
Government would one draw the line for submitting CPP's?

MWS:  How about one CPP for the US Postal Service, Dept. of Defense, the
IRS,
and the Attorney General?  This is an even better example than the one I
had in
mind, my own very large company.

     In order to resolve this issue, instead of deleting the sentence
(line 513-514):

          "Each Trading Partner SHALL register one and only one CPP in
an
          ebXML compliant Registry system."

Would it be more prudent to maintain the underlying thought process of the
sentence, which is to inform "trading partners" how may "CPP"s they can
register in the "ebXML compliant Registry system", by modifying the
sentence
in a manner some what like:

          "Each Trading Partner SHALL register at least one CPP in an
ebXML
          compliant Registry system."

This sentence structure should now support the idea that a Trading Partner
can submit more than one CPP, and maintain the underlying intent of
ensuring
that Trading Partners understand to be ebXML compliant they must register
at
a minimum one CPP.

MWS:  This sentence also appears to say that to use the ebXML
specifications,
a Trading Partner SHALL put its CPPs in an ebXML registry.  The original
also
said this but I didn't notice because I was focussed only on "one and only
one".
In principle, a pair of Trading Partners could also hand-craft an entire
CPA
without registering CPPs anywhere, and still use other ebXML
specifications.
The last time I looked, one of the overall ebXML specifications
(Requirements,
I think) stated that ebXML specifications be used separately or together.
Let's
not lose that thought.

MWS:  I suggest replacing the sentece in lines 513-514 by

   A Trading Partner MAY create one or more CPPs.  Multiple CPPs MAY be
   used
   for different aspects of an enterprise with different capability
   characteristics.  A Trading Partner MAY register its CPPs in an
   ebXML-compliant
   Registry system.

Respectfully,

Bob Cunningham
Military Traffic Management Command
Alexandria, VA



-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:duane@xmlglobal.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 4:59 PM
To: Martin W Sachs
Cc: knaujok@home.com; ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org; ebXML-Architecture List
Subject: Re: comment on TA specification


Marty:

I can forward this one,  especially since you and I have already
discussed this in our email.

Team:

This comment is a valid concern.  There will be cases with larger
enterprises whereby different divisions of the company may wish to
express their own CPP's.  Accordingly,  this requirement for One CPP per
Company would be prohibitive.

I vote we take it out as Marty Suggests.

Duane Nickull

Martin W Sachs wrote:
>
> Klaus,
>
> Please forward to the TA team.
>
> Line 513-514:  The TP team collectively does not remember stating a
> requirement of registering only one CPP per trading partner. Please
remove
> this requirement.  It is overly restrictive, especially for large
> enterprises, which may need to state various combinations and
permutations
> of capabilities for different purposes.
>
> 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
>
****************************************************************************

*********
begin:vcard 
n:Ferris;Christopher 
tel;work:781-442-3063
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Sun Microsystems, Inc;XML Technology Development
adr:;;One Network Drive;Burlington;Ma;01824-0903;USA
version:2.1
email;internet:chris.ferris@east.Sun.COM
title:Sr. Staff Engineer
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Christopher Ferris
end:vcard