RE: minutes of jan-17-2001 con-call

[Stefano POGLIANI <stefano.pogliani@sun.com>]

Sorry I did not attend the phone call.
A little clarification : why it was agreed to remove the TransportTimeout
element and
its children from Transport ?

Thanks a lot. Regards
/Stefano

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
> Sent: 17 January 2001 20:39
> To: ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: minutes of jan-17-2001 con-call
>
>
> Attendees:
>
> Richard Bigelow
> Chris Ferris
> Marty Sachs
> Dale Moberg
> Henry Lowe
> Brad Alexander
> Scott Hinkelman
>
> Minutes:
>
> Preliminaries
> - initial draft of spec has been published. Contains only
> CPP section. CPA section is being authored presently
>
> - we are beyond the established approval cycle deadline for
> initial QR review for consideration in April
>
> - chris gave update on the results of the TR&P face2face in London
>
> - Marty indicated that at the Steering Committee meeting, the
> location of the April ebXML meeting had not yet been settled,
> but that it would be on the east coast of the US.
>
> Discussion of comments against v0.1
> - Dale
> 	- probably needs to be xref to timing attributes... it was noted
> that the elements exist under the relble messaging as well as
> under transport.
> Some discussion as to whether the tags are needed in both places.
>
> The members on the call agreed that the TransportTimeout element and
> its children should be removed from Transport.
>
> - Richard
> 	- NonRepudiation element has child EncryptionAlgorithm
> The members of the call agreed that this element does not belong
> and should be removed.
>
> - Dale & Scott
> 	- discussed the issue of expressing choices in CPP
> we may be confusing things because we are tryin to accomplish
> both CPP and CPA
>
> lengthy discussion as to how to support choice in a CPP
>
> - Marty
> 	- for first pass on CPA chapter, we want to get something
> out soon but that is consistent with the CPP section and then work
> the two together.
>
> - Scott
> 	- raises issue as to whether we have the "negotiable" aspects
> of a CPP modelled. Should be an open issue.
>
> - Chris
> 	- raised issue of inclusion of FTP since there is no TR&P
> "binding" for FTP planned. Team consensus seemed to be that we
> keep it. Marty will leave what's there, but it needs work! Volunteers
> to provide input will be accepted;-)
>
> - Dale volunteered to try to come up with a proposal for describing
> send capabilities.
>
> - Dale - mentioned that he has some problems with the ServiceBinding
> under the Role element.
>
> - Scott
> 	- some discussion of whether CPP/CPA should "include" a BPM
> specification or simply point to it. Scott is not convinced that the
> "thick" CPP is necessary.
>