Title: RE: [ebxml-msg] FW: [ebxml-cppa] IBM patent disclosure
I don't think we need to withdraw v2 from the approval process.
This may be as simple as putting something in the errata, for section 1.2.3,
which says something like:
Throughout this specification,
reference is made to the work
of the CPPA working group. This
is not meant as an endorsement
or as a requirement. Any
equivalent means of storing
configuration information is
acceptable.
Regards,
David.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jacques Durand
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002
3:24 PM
To: 'Martin W Sachs'; David Fischer
Cc: ebXML
Msg
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] FW: [ebxml-cppa] IBM patent
disclosure
It is true that the MS specification is explicit about the
fact that
a CPA document is not needed. The CPAId, if
present, "MAY reference an
instance of a CPA". It is
only required to identify a set of conversation parameters.
Two MSHs involved in the same conversation, are only required to
identify the
same set of parameters based on the
CPAId.
However, remain many wordings in the spec that "assume" the
use
of a CPA doc, describing normative material
by making explicit references to CPA elements. An
example:
"The DuplicateElimination element MUST NOT be
present if the CPA has
duplicateElimination set to
never".
So there seems to be some - maybe just editorial? -
inconsistency here.
The most radical way to really make MS non-depending on CPA,
is to remove
all direct normative references to "CPA"
and CPA elements, such as above.
But there has to be
some other way to refer to the agreement parameters that
govern a conversation...
One way is to
introduce a "conversation mode agreement" (say, CMA) entity,
containing the small subset of MS-relevant CPA parameters.
This "CMA" is a change, but not as major as it looks. Does
not even need be described
as an XML document. Only as
a list of abstract conversation parameters with possible values.
The description of how this CMA maps to a CPA
elements, is non-normative.
Incidentally, that would
make it easier for implementors to capture
the
parameters needed to "configure" a conversation.
Just
an idea, knowing that its feasibility is low, late at this stage...
Regards,
Jacques
-----Original Message-----
From:
Martin W Sachs [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 7:33 AM
To: David Fischer
Cc: ebXML Msg
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] FW: [ebxml-cppa] IBM patent
disclosure
We don't require a CPA in messaging. We expended a great
deal of time and
effort to make sure that the MSG spec
is correct while not requiring a CPA.
Whether you want
to advise users to configure their systems manually
instead of using a CPA is an entirely different question.
It won't serve anyone well to pull V2 back from the OASIS
approval process
at this point if that's what you have
in mind.
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
*************************************************************************************
David
Fischer
<david@drummondgr
To: ebXML Msg
<>
oup.com>
cc:
Subject: [ebxml-msg] FW: [ebxml-cppa] IBM patent
disclosure
04/24/2002
09:49
AM
We need to seriously consider whether we require CPPA in
Messaging. If IBM
requires a license to use
CPPA, that could easily transfer to Messaging
based
upon this requirement.
Regards,
David Fischer
Drummond Group.
-----Original Message-----
From: David
Fischer [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 8:45 AM
To:
Cc: Rik
Drummond
Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] IBM patent
disclosure
I logged on this morning to vote yes on the
specification. Now I am going
to
abstain.
I gather that the very existence of this technology is what
IBM claims and
there
is
nothing we can change in the specification to obviate IBMs claim --
they
claim the whole document even though they had a
minor role in developing
it.
IBM is going to require anyone who uses CPPA to obtain a
license? This
makes
IBM
the owner of CPPA! Marty has assured us that the cost will be
zero,
yet IBM
is not willing
to make this assurance in writing. Rest assured then, the
cost
will not always be zero.
Regards,
David Fischer
Drummond Group.
-----Original Message-----
From:
Martin W Sachs [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 6:09 PM
To:
Subject:
[ebxml-cppa] IBM patent disclosure
Regarding the question in the minutes of whether someone must
apply for a
license for the IBM patents, I have
checked on the answer. The answer is
yes.
If a company believes that their CPPA implementation may be covered
by the IBM patents, the procedure is to apply to IBM for a
license. There
will be no fee for the
license.
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
********************************************************************************
*****
----- Forwarded by Martin W
Sachs/Watson/IBM on 04/19/2002 07:03 PM -----
Peter Ogden
<pogden@cycloneco
To: "ebXML-CPPA
(E-mail)"
<>
mmerce.com>
cc:
Subject: [ebxml-cppa] CPPA
conference call
minutes - 2002/04/19
04/19/2002 06:30
PM
Here are my notes from today's conference call. Please
advise if any
corrections are needed.
Peter
**** Attachment CPPACallMinutes20020419.doc has been removed
from this note
on 19 April 2002 by Martin W Sachs
****
----------------------------------------------------------------
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>
