Arvola,
I read the proposal with much interest. Looks good to me
based on my current understanding. I have a few minor
items you may consider.
1. There was a "signed" attribute in your first proposal which seems
to have disappeared in the second one. Was that a typo?
2. Please consider "perCPA" instead of "fixed" since we already have
"perMessage" (unless "fixed" has other semantics)
Another problem which may touch upon negotiation is,
can we have a message that does not require a CPA?
(don't you need one to bootstrap CPA creation negotiations?)
Should we have some statement that covers this issue?
Regards,
-Suresh
-----Original Message-----
From: Arvola Chan [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 11:30 AM
To: Damodaran, Suresh; 'Tony Fletcher'; ;
Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa] RE: [ebxml-msg] CPA & MS overriding parameters
Suresh:
Please see my proposal in
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-msg/200111/msg00253.html
Regards,
-Arvola
-----Original Message-----
From: Damodaran, Suresh <>
To: 'Tony Fletcher' <>;
<>;
<>
Date: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 8:57 AM
Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] RE: [ebxml-msg] CPA & MS overriding parameters
>I am encouraged and hopeful that a solution to this issue will be found
>based on the "permessage" idea (as per Dale's earlier email "observer's
>report").
>The three cases that Tony outlines below may be used
>for analysis of individual entries in the CPA.
>It is not clear how the "permessage" notion will be built into the CPP.
>I plan to wait to see a clear description of the solution before further
>commenting.
>
>Regards,
>-Suresh
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tony Fletcher [mailto:]
>Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 3:15 AM
>To: ;
>Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] RE: [ebxml-msg] CPA & MS overriding parameters
>
>
>Dear All,
>
>I would have thought that there are three cases that need to be allowed for
>in the CPA:
>
>1) The two parties to the CPA agree explicitly or implicitly that a
>parameter is not specified in the CPA and is to be handled by messaging as
>per the messaging spec. (which could be implicit, per session, per message,
>etc.)
>
>2) The two parties to the CPA agree to specify a default value in the
>CPA
>which is used if not present in the messaging exchange explicitly, but may
>be overridden by the use of the messaging service on a per message or per
>session basis.
>
>3) The two parties to the CPA agree to specify the parameter in the CPA
>and
>that is the value that shall be used - no messing!
>
>The Messaging and CPP/A groups need to agree which out 1), 2) & 3) are
>appropriate for each parameter of the messaging service.
>
>If the messaging group meeting has already passed this point and made a
>workable agreement then fine - I was only adding to the thread, not meaning
>to re-open discussion.
>
>Best Regards Tony
>A M Fletcher
>Choreology Ltd., 13 Austin Friars, London EC2N 2JX UK
>Tel: +44 (0) 20 76701784 Mobile: +44 (0) 7801 948219
> <mailto:>
>(Home: )
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
