RE: Implicit CPP/CPA for Registry and Registry client

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

If you are suggesting that the negotiation be based on the TP
specifications, and that we do not have to specify this negotiation, I am in
favor of that as long as the other spec is properly referenced.

If we find that in the final analysis, this is a "specialization" of the TP
specification, we will need to show those extensions, and the additional
negotiations based on those extensions.

As far as the word implicit, I really have problems with it.  I suggest we
drop the word altogether and make strong references to the TP documents.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Farrukh Najmi
To: Nieman, Scott
Cc: 'Farrukh Najmi '; 'ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org '
Sent: 4/4/01 7:30 AM
Subject: Re: Implicit CPP/CPA for Registry and Registry client

By implicit I mean that there is no need for a negotiated CPA.
Negotiated CPA
between registry and client is a valid but more advanced need IMHO. It
seems
adeqauet for now to spec the template CPP/CPA in the registry specs and
expect
that individual clients will fill in the URL etc. for the registry and
be able
to do interactions with it as deined by RS spec and the BP specification
schema
that will be added to it by end of next week.

This has been the operating assumption as recently as our meetings last
week.
Please discuss this now if there are different opinions on this.

"Nieman, Scott" wrote:

> Farrukh,
>
> Help me out on this one.
>
> If you are basing the CPP/CPA on the TP/BP work, would not this be an
> "explicit" CPP/CPA, which is what I have been suggesting for a while?
> Implicit suggests that the physical CPP does not exist, but is
implied.
>
> im·plic·it (m-plst) adj. Implied or understood though not directly
expressed
>
> I really believe the physical CPP must exist to understand the
capabilities
> of a registry.
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Farrukh Najmi
> To: ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org
> Sent: 4/4/01 6:47 AM
> Subject: Implicit CPP/CPA for Registry and Registry client
>
> I wanted to remind the team that I am working on an action item from
our
> last meeting to re-introduce the implicit CPP/CPA for the registry and
> registry client. These were removed from the spec when we got woefully
> out of date with the TP teams specs. My action item is to bring them
> up-to-date with current TP and BP specs.
>
> So yes the registry will have an implicit template CPP in the spec
> defined in terms of the TP and BP specs as will the registry client.
The
> two CPPs will be used in much the same way as 2 parties that wish to
> conduct eBuisness together. This has always been the intent of our
> specs.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Farrukh
>
>  <<Card for Farrukh Najmi>>

--
Regards,
Farrukh


 <<Card for Farrukh Najmi>>