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

[Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>]

All,

Some comments below.

Cheers,

Chris

"Moberg, Dale" wrote:
> 
> 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.

Haven't had time to address it yet...

> 
> 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.

Synchronous messaging was not agreed in the TR&P face2face... It still
needs more thought, analysis and consensus among the team before it
is settled.

> 
> 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?

I'm on board with a quick turnaround.

> 
> 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

Yeah, this is still an open issue as far as I'm concerned...

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

new version of MSH spec (0.92) is due out Monday... I'll forward a reference to
the spec when it is published... David B is just putting some finishing touches
on it...

> 
> 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 :-)
begin:vcard 
n:Ferris;Christopher
tel;cell:508-667-0402
tel;work:781-442-3063
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Sun Microsystems, Inc;XTC Advanced Development
adr:;;One Network Drive;Burlington;Ma;01803-0903;USA
version:2.1
email;internet:chris.ferris@east.sun.com
title:Senior Staff Engineer
fn:Christopher Ferris
end:vcard