[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: TPA Info Rework
(Again, I hit the send button in error. Hmmm....) David, I like this proposal. I am not speechless, however :-) 7.9.1 From and To Line 48: CpaReferences: Presumably should be CpaReference 7.9.1.2 ConversationId Line 65: Can we delete "or more"? There are some fairly serious run-time issues with more than 2 parties. I would prefer to leave that for the future in both TP and TRP. 7.9.1.3 CPA Reference Line 81 and 82: The term we are using in TP Requirements is "Collaboration Protocol Agreement". 7.9.1.4 Party Profile Reference Line 106 and elsewhere: Currently, the TP team is using the term "Collaboration Protocol Profile". Could we state that here instead of Party Profile. Alternatively (and more controversially), the term Trading Partner Profile is reserved for a profile that contains a CPP and higher level definitions. Editor's note, lines 125-131: In my opinion, if a Party Profile has to contain more than one way of exchanging messages, that Party expects to work with the other party to select one way. In other words, that's a situation which cries out for a CPA. The CPA is the additional mechanism that the note refers to. I suggest stating a RECOMMENDation that if a Party expects a CPP to be used in lieu of a CPA, it should limit the CPP to one way of exchanging messages and if the CPP has to state more than one way, a CPA should be used to define the choice for one pair of parties. 7.9.2 Service Line 193 and elsewhere: I agree that ServiceInterface is not appropriate since that term usually refers to inter-layer interface in a protocol stack, and TRP seems to be going in that direction for its upper interface. Other possible terms, some of which have been mentioned by members of the TP team are Collaboration Interface, Business Service Interface (assuming Stefano is willing to find another term for his Business Service Interface), and Logical Port. Let's try to resolve this one on Monday of the Tokyo meeting. 7.10 DTDs I prefer the first version (lines 221-242). 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 ************************************************************************************* "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com> on 10/23/2000 08:30:05 PM To: "ebXML Transport (E-mail)" <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org> cc: Subject: TPA Info Rework Folks The attached PDF and MS Word files contain a re-work for version 7.9 (XML Header) of version 0.21d of the TRP Message Service Spec. The main reason for doing this is to support the sending of messages without prior agreement of a TPA (CPA?). The introduction to the document provides a full explanation of the changes made and the reasons why. Comments are welcome. I also think we should discuss this in Tokyo. David <<TPA Info Alternative 2.doc>> <<TPA Info Alternative 2.pdf>> Product Management, CommerceOne 4400 Rosewood Drive 3rd Fl, Bldg 4, Pleasanton, CA 94588, USA Tel: +1 (925) 520 4422 (also voicemail); Pager: +1 (888) 936 9599 mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com; Web: http://www.commerceone.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC