Notes for TPA WG on CPP/CPA conference call Jan. 10.

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

Attending:

Marty Sachs
Brad Alexander
Scott Hinkelman
Dale Moberg
Henry Lowe
Maryann Hondo

Wednesday January 10, 2001, 1 to 2 PM EST.

1. Current Status Reports and Miscellaneous Discussions

a. All of us are hoping for a Post-London trip DTD update from Chris Ferris
showing where the sender capabilities are described in the CPP.

b. We are in a holding pattern on how to handle the match for the
synchronous 
transport case, waiting to see what TRP does, to make certain that we can
at least cover the description of those capabilities, together with
information
on matching. The question of what scope CPP description should
provide for Rpc-like transports was discussed and postponed until
after we at least cover ebXML synchronous transport correctly. By then
XP and other related transports may be checked to see how they can
be treated.

c. Marty encourages everyone to read the BP Specification Schema document.
We discussed how  a given BP could be bound by the CPA to various possible 
Delivery channels. Some issues of how to decide whether a CPA was a "good
enough"
implementation for the BP specification were discussed. Again we decided to
first make 
certain we cover the ebXML capabilities

d. Specification status: need to provide something by end of week to QR.
Spec
will document each tag in the Boston f2f DTD version. A  level 0.1 version
may be
done by end of this week. (Marty in an optimistic moment.) Marty warns that
he will 
need a 24 hour turnaround of response. Would like
group feedback before QR submission, and the feedback should
boil down to an opinion on whether we should submit the version to QR?

e. We discussed testing CPP and CPA on Registry Security Services to make
certain
that the CPP/CPA descriptions and matching procedures would cover the
Registry
approach. Needed for internal coherence of the ebXML architecture? 

f. BP Specification: how to handle signals, time-outs with various lower
level
implementations. Interaction patterns. How to handle the implicit
acknowledgment
situtation if synchronous HTTP or RPC-like

g. Packaging pattern work in holding pattern waiting on TRP and security
specifications for
security. 

2. Futures

a. Call next week? Yes, with details to follow from Marty.

EXTREME IMPORTANCE 
b. WG members should be prepared for rapid turnaround in their assessment of
the 0.1
draft. Read and comment within 24 hours of posting. Expect posting of 0.1
draft
by end of the week. All comments and reasons should bear upon the issue:

Should we submit 0.1 to QR...

Meeting adjourned to permit Marty to return to writing :-)