RE: Minutes of today's conference call.

["Moberg, Dale" <Dale_Moberg@stercomm.com>]

>Look at #4 (pg 3). 
> Should be possible to automatically extract a
>PA from a PP.  
[ issue here was extracting PPs from PA-- hope I
didn't transpose these when speaking]
>Dale: not sure this will be a good thing.  What if just one
>PA of a PP is agreed to?  Requirement to retrieve original PP is overly
>strong. What if it's just to extract PA from a PP?  OK.

I would like to clarify what I was concerned with
on the PP extraction from a PA. Because a PA may 
be formed from subsets of the two underlying PPs,
(or because I think this should be possible),
it is overly restrictive to require that the original
PPs be extractable from a PA. What is OK, I think,
is that some PP or other be extractable from a PA.
I reserve complete agreement until I see the procedure
for doing this. I think the roles of the Ps in the PA
will be clear so we could tell which part of a BP/CP
the Ps advertise in their PPs. Marty could probably clarify
this for us for the current documents we are initially
considering. 

I always think of the PPs as really capability inventories,
and the actual agreement is really on what real delivery
channels will suffice to "deploy" the BP. Granted that may be a bit
simplistic, but it helps me orient myself. The situation
will be common that one Party (a big hub kind of node) will
have a lot of capabilities (in comms, security,  BPs, and so on)
while SME nodes will have quite restricted capabilities and interests
(can I get that in a spreadsheet or fax?...) If things emerge
so that some capabilities are outsourced, then some d. channels
will really be intermediary proxy capabilities. I think we
should prepare for this sort of complexity in phase 1, with
the details by phase 2.