CC Requirements : RE: Formal Protest from XMLGlobal.

["Nieman, Scott" <Scott.Nieman@NorstanConsulting.com>]

Martin / David,

In Tokyo, we spent a good amount of time Thursday reviewing the information
model with Chris Nelson.  We discovered that much of the model easily maps
to the existing RIM, and later that day resolved the "context" issue.
Therefore the CC information model can potentially become the scheme for
retrieving any CC information from a registry. The principle is that what
you put in is what you get back out.  The level of specificity is up to you
and is determined by the CC scheme and its mapping to the RIM.  We agreed to
assist CC in developing an Implementation Guide to assist in this process.

However, I am concerned about a few things:
1) Requirements need to flow through the Requirements Project Team who
resolves interdependencies between Project teams.
2) There seems to be a requirement to be able to resolve entity references
directly from a DOM parser (second and third paragraph); interaction with
the registry currently requires TRP which was a StC decision.  At this time
every request to the Registry needs authentication. RR discussed session and
state management which could potentially assist direct DOM interaction with
the Registry.  That too would require at least the first request (during
bootstrap) to authenticate and establish a session.  The issue is state
management, as that leads to security vunerability.  As such, RR is not
supporting session and state management by the Geneva release, but possibly
by the  Vienna release.

Best regards,

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Bryan
To: Nieman, Scott; 'David RR Webber '; 'ebxml repository '; 'Klaus-Dieter
Naujok '
Sent: 12/28/00 4:00 AM
Subject: Re: Formal Protest from XMLGlobal.

Scott

> Please help me out regarding the Core Component request.  Was it a
> "requirements" document that was emailed directly to me, that I
forwarded
it
> to our list?  The posting got zero replies, so I brought it up to the
StC
> four weeks ago.  We (RR/CC) needs to follow up with a teleconference
to
> either discuss this version, or perhaps a version that includes more
> background information and examples.  Is this information also in the
ebXML
> Requirements specification?

The final version of the requirements, as submitted to the CC website on
14th December (whether or not anyone sent it direct to you I do not
know) is
attached. There are only a few minor changes to the version submitted to
you
in Tokyo, all of which are related to terminology changes made on the CC
side as we reviewed our metamodel on 13th Dec.

Martin Bryan
 <<CCRegReqs.doc>>