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

[Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

Stefano,

The consensus of the group on the phone call was that there is no need for
two parties to a CPA to agree on transport timeout parameters.  The
thinking was that this is a local configuration matter.  Also it was
understood that if Reliable Messaging is in use, that effectively
supersedes timeouts done inside the HTTP implementation and that for SMTP,
the upper levels have no control over the timeouts anyway.

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
*************************************************************************************



Stefano POGLIANI <stefano.pogliani@sun.com> on 01/17/2001 03:15:29 PM

To:   Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>,
      ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
cc:
Subject:  RE: minutes of jan-17-2001 con-call



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.
>