Re: Special note for CPP members

[Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com>]

Marty:

I agree.  I also acknowledge that you have stated all along that the CPA
negotiation is outside of the scope of your group.

But...

as people are starting to actually implement this type of software, 
they are seeing that this is potentially a make or break issue.

Problem:

You are right that it is very unlikely such an effort could be
effectively started (nevermind completed) before May.  It will likely be
totally dependant on the work your group is doing and probably cannot be
effectively scoped beforehand.  

I think this issue is rather large therefore the Steering committee was
notified.

I don't have a solution either so let's hope someone out there is
listening and has some spare time to ponder...

Duane

Martin W Sachs wrote:
> 
> Duane,
> 
> Since your last email was copied to the Steering Committee, I believe that
> it is appropriate for the Steering committee to see my response in full
> along with your original email (below).
> 
> Regards,
> Marty
> 
> Martin W Sachs
> 01/29/2001 06:48 PM
> 
> To:   Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com>
> cc:   "ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org" <ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org>
> From: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> Subject:  Re: Special note for CPP members  (Document link: Martin W.
>       Sachs)
> 
> Duane,
> 
> The TP team discussed CPA generation from CPPs and concluded that the
> generation process is outside the team's scope as initially constituted.
> The team did set itself a requirement of defining the CPP and CPA such that
> composition and negotiation are possible.
> 
> There is a high level issue with your proposal.  I believe that a lot of
> people will argue that defining the CPA composition process at that level
> of detail is designing the implementation.  Since there is no
> interoperability issue in the CPA composition software, it is not at all
> clear that ebXML should define a standard that is for all practical
> purposes software design in an area where there is no harm in two different
> CPA composers doing it differently.  I believe that a decision to define a
> composition standard should be reviewed at the highest levels of ebXML.
> 
> If there are specific concerns that people designing CPA composers have,
> they can bring these to the attention of the TP team.  It may be that
> specific concerns can be addressed with specific changes to details of the
> CPP/CPA specification without having to design a composer.
> 
> In any case, this team only began its work in August, giving it just 5
> months to settle on requirements and then complete a version 1.0 spec
> (measured from August to the start of the QR cycles for April, a deadline
> that we did not meet).  So even if ebXML approves such a requirement on the
> TP team, the team could not possibly start work on it until after version
> 1.0, which means after May, 2001 (assuming that ebXML continues to exist
> beyond May).
> 
> I urge you not to add this requirement at this time since it can't possibly
> be fulfilled.  If ebXML continues after May, a CPA composition standard can
> be discussed at the May or July 2001 meeting.
> 
> Regards,
> Marty
> 
> P.S., the terms are "Collaboration Protocol Agreement" and "Collaboration
> Protocol Profile".  I believe that I pointed this out in my comments to the
> TA spec.
> *************************************************************************************
> 
> 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
> *************************************************************************************
> 
> Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com> on 01/29/2001 05:40:18 PM
> 
> To:   "ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org" <ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org>
> cc:
> Subject:  Special note for CPP members
> 
> Hello all:
> 
> As we conclude the TA Specification and the disposition of comments, it
> has become apparent that there is a potential shortcoming on
> specifications regarding the Trading Partner issues, specifically
> concerning CPA generation from CPP's and business processes.  In order
> to facilitate CPA negotiation,  people who are building reference
> implementations have informed us that they believe it is necessary to
> observe a standard protocol for deriving a CPA from CPP's.
> 
> Therefore,  we have added two small sections to the technical
> architecture specification (NOTE: not officially approved by the TA team
> yet) which read as follows:
> 
> "CPA negotiation SHALL be strictly defined.   Issues such a precedence,
> prioritization and the mechanics of the negotiation process SHALL be
> addressed in the ebXML Specifications governing Collaborative Protocol
> Agreements."
> 
> "A CPA negotiation protocol SHALL be defined by the ebXML TP Project
> Team."
> 
> Comments please? (Today if possible)
> 
> Duane Nickull
> TA Team
> 
> *************************************************************************************
> 
> 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
> *************************************************************************************