minutes of Sept. 13, 2000 conference call

[Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

Present:  Chris Ferris, Anne Hendrie, Marty Sachs, Dale Moberg

The next conference call will be Wednesday, Sept. 20  4 pm - 5:30 pm, US
Eastern Daylight Time.  It is only in one week because of today's small
attendance and because I am not available for a call on Sept. 27.

We discussed stating the conference call times in UTC.  We decided that UTC
may add to rathert than reduce confusion because the offset from local time
to UTC changes with the seasons while time differences between time zones
are constant (except perhaps for some anomalies during the short periods
surrounding the time changes.

We decided to leave the conference call time at 4  PM US EDT for now
because both the small number of responses to the proposal to change the
time and the small number of people on the call today give no basis for
making a fare decision.  Anyone who is concerned about the current time of
the calls is welcome to bring it up at the Tokyo meeting when there will
presumably be enough people, representing the full range of geographies, to
enable making a fair decision.

Mike Rawlins had previously announced that he is unable to continue as vice
lead, though he will remain associated with the team.  We decided that
David Burdett is a good prospect for vice lead if he is able to fit it in
with his TRP team responsibilities. I said that I would communicate with
David.

Chris Ferris suggested appointing a liaison with Technical Architecture.  I
said that I would ask Scott Hinkelman.

Chris agreed to assume responsibility for the team web pages.

We discussed the requirements document and the recently suggested changes.
I said that I would fold all the suggestions into the document and put it
out on the list.  The change of terminology which was proposed on the list
was agreed to. Some specific points discussed were:

   Discovery:  our scope includes the contents of the party profile and
   party agreement and some aspects of negotiation (a future phase of our
   work), but not the discovery process.  The discovery process belongs to
   registry/repository and perhaps business process.  Chris noted that some
   ebxml group needs to deal with how to form an agreement;  without this,
   we have no interoperability to lower the e-business entry barriers.
   Marty proposed to clarify that discovery means the contents of the
   profile and that the composition of a party agreement from party
   profiles is within our scope.

   Chris stated that the negotiation process is not simple and may require
   human intervention to resolve differences between the two parties. An
   example is two parties who want to perform a RosettaNet PIP but one or
   both needs a twist on the vanilla PIP specification.  Dale advised
   starting with communication and security first.

   Chris points out that there is a lot in UDDI which overlaps TP, in
   particular, things in UDDI which overlap tpaML.  He observed that we
   cannot ignore UDDI. For example, do we want to be able to point to
   things in a UDDI repository?

   Anne suggested that the material under "The specifications shall"
   belongs in the Technical Architecture document.  Chris added that some
   of it belongs in the ebXML requirements document.  We should also call
   out where we are following ebXML requirements. We decided to forward the
   document to the Requirements and Technical Architecture teams whe we
   consider it complete.  Anne agreed to review the Requirements document
   and propose how to fit in the TP material.

   Chris suggested that we organize the requirements by phases.

We briefly touched on fragmentation of the PA, e.g. treating the
communications and messaging definitions as one document and the business
protocol section as a separate document.  Chris pointed out that if the PA
is an assembly of pieces from various places, we have to look at the pieces
to see how they could be enhanced and then worry about linking the pieces.

Regarding the upcoming Face to Face meeting, the following subjects should
be on the agenda:

   What the TRP needs in the PA.

   What must be in the message header to suppor the PA.

   Dale: scope creep

   Chris: start reviewing the contents of the IBM tpaML 1.0.6 proposal to
   see how well it meets our requirements and then making the needed
   changes.  Chris stated that he does not want to start from scratch.

Post meeting thought:  I plan to ask for a volunteer at each conference
call to take notes and issue minutes.

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