OASIS ebXML Collaboration Protocol Profile and Agreement TC
Reston Virginia Fourth Face to Face Conference
OASIS ebXML CPPA Technical Committee
June 3, 4, 5, 2002
Selim Aissi, phone
Arvola Chan, phone
Jamie Clark, phone
Brian Hayes, phone
Neelakantan Kartha, phone
Hima Mukkamala, phone
Pete Wenzel, phone
Visitors and Guests
Cedric Vessell, DOD, DefenseInformationSystemsAgency (the other DISA)
Kim Lambert, Logistics Management Institute
Monday, June 3, 2002
8 Introductions and Agenda
Welcome remarks. Thanks to Mercator and David Smiley.
CCR (Competitive Contracts Registry) agenda addition? If time permits.
Original Agenda for the OASIS June 3, 2002
8:30-9 Discussion of Agenda and Additions or Changes to Agenda for June 4 or June 5.
9-12 CPPA Negotiation SubTeam: Marty Sachs
1 PM Yukinori Saito Presentation.
2-4 Web Service Integration: Arvola Chan and Pallavi Malu
Reston Face to Face June 3 Meeting.
Notes by Peter Ogden
Negotiation Subteam presentation: Marty Sachs
Negotation is devoted to the construction of the protocol by which a CPA is created by two parties interested in collaboration, based on their CPPs. A Negotiation Descriptor Document enumerates the items which can be negotiated. Autonegotiation is an enabler for spontaneous e-business.
Autonegotiation Working Session
(See Marty's slides)
Discussion/Analysis of negotiability of CPP/A elements and attributes, based on Dale's spreadsheet.
Asia-Pacific ebXML Update
(See Yukinori's slides)
Regarding the point at the end of Yukinori's presentation that CPP/A v3.0 should be backwards-compatible with v2.0, David Smiley asked what is built into v2.0 to support that. Dale pointed to the extensibility techniques (##other/##any constructs, etc.).
Web Services Subteam Introduction
(See Arvola's slides)
Four types of operation are supported by portType: One-way (to web service), request-response (to web service), solicit-response (from web service), notification (from web service). Arvola noted that currently, WSDL does not really support operations which are initiated by the service because it doesn't have a way to specify/collect the client's address.
While discussing the timeline for the WS subteam, it was noted that the ebXML CPP/A team must re-charter in December 2002. Dale stated that the WS group's initial deliverables should be completed by then. Marty asked whether there was a plan for maintaining our specification in the event that re-chartering does not happen.
Discussion of possible WS subteam deliverables:
Show how to take CPPA and make it available as a "quality of service" binding within WSDL. Security, reliable messaging, etc.
Consider how we could assimilate WSDL schema into ours. Maybe develop a joint BPSS / CPPA WS integration paper.
White papers, best practices, etc.
Consider a "vanilla SOAP" binding (instead of ebXML binding).
Brian Hayes said he'd help with writing up some of the above.
Arvola noted Joel Munter's questions related to what artifacts of CPP/A would be published in a (UDDI/ebXML) registry.
Should WSDL be generated from CPP or CPA? Dale thinks that we'd begin by mapping CPP into WSDL.
Discussion of Yukinori's questions from INNODIGITAL:
Multi-hop: Actor attribute, when set to ".../nextMSH", supports multi-hop acknowledgments.
Responsibility for keeping track of requests/responses in concurrent business processes. Perhaps this should be discussed in a tutorial/best practices document. Multiple concurrent collaborations using the same CPA will have unique conversationIds (generated by the MSH or the middleware).
Default CPA for messaging with Reg Rep. This is not really a CPP/A issue; Dale will ask Faruk whether they (the Reg/Rep group) intend to provide a CPA for registration.
CPPA v1.9 errata: Line 755, there is a spurious /.
Tuesday, June 4
Original Agenda Tuesday, June 4, 2002
9-10:45 Transaction Support: Tony Fletcher and Himagiri Mukkamala.
11 New Requirement Review: Open
Noon Lunch - Working lunch - BTP Requirement review and discussion
1:30 - 1:45 Break
1:45 Review Suresh's comments on the 1.9 spec
3:00 CPPA Negotiation Session: [ Not completed]
3:30-5 Other Enhancements [ Merged with Wedneday morning prioritization]
[Following topics not discussed in any detailed focused manner.]
Security: SAML XACML, CPPA wsdl:binding
Generalizations for other XMLMessaging patterns.
Generalizations for other Choreography notations.
Tuesday, June 4, 2002
Notes by Marty Sachs.
(See Tony's slides - "not just transactions for web services - but it is that")
The term transaction has at least two meanings:
As used in BPSS, it refers to a single business operation (Purchase order, invoice, etc.)
As used in BTP, it refers to the coordination of business processes involved in commerce, in an ACID (Atomic, Consistent, Isolated, Durable) sort of way.
Find out if A and B will do their bit if and only if they are told to
If they say yes, tell them to do it
Three levels of definition of BTP
Three ways of
Maintain compensation log (delete entries to commit)
Maintain compensation log (delete entries to cancel, otherwise execute them at once to commit) - "wait and fire late"
BTP's ability to operate under conditions of discontinuous service is related to the fact that it doesn't depend on a connection (the machinery on either end of the transaction is not even aware of a connection). Could be bound to IP (doesn't need TCP connection semantics).
Great value in separating the application protocol (forward progress) and the coordination protocol (coordination, exception handling, failure recovery)
BTP uses a 2-phase outcome coordination protocol to create atomic effects (results of computations)
BTP permits the compostion of atomic units of work into cohesive business transactions (cohesions) which allow application selection of which work units will be confirmed (or cancelled). Example: travel arrangements where two hotels and two airlines are arranged, only one of each of which is needed. At application level, define rules that govern which is chosen; BTP provides only low-level atom/cohesion support.
HealthCare - William Kammerer
Support for legacy connectivity (modem-based (XMODEM, Kermit), Bisync). Need ability to specify phone numbers, scripts, modem settings, etc.
Moberg - we need to investigate how we can extend DeliveryChannel to do this.
Looking for ebReg/Rep POC. Want to search based on any commonly used corporate identifiers (DUNS, NPID, ...).
AIAG (Chuck Fenton)
AIAG's goal today is file transfer.
E5 protocols (limited support so far)
Doesn't like "peer-to-peer"-ness of ebXML
Unlike HIPAA, payload agnostic
Message routing workgroup is interested in putting together a reference implementation. Narrow interest: IP-based, HTTP for file transfer. No interest in legacy protocols.
Dale said that Chuck's "initiate-only" semantics may impact CPPA 3.0 because we don't have ability to specify get and post (obtain and deliver) verbs. Chuck said he's not looking for "verbs", just looking for framework to support what he needs to do.
Dale: rendezvouz message. Initiate makes request, then drops connection. Only way to get app-level response is to go get it (perhaps from a rendezvous point which is returned in response to initial request).
Energy (Dick Brooks)
Energy management in TX used FTP for file transfer, wasn't adequate.
European energy companies mandated to automate profile exchange.
Wants to collaborate with European counterparts on profile upload/download.
Notifications (system going down on Saturday), action notices (certificate will be updated).
BTP Requirements for CPP/A
(See Tony's Word document).
One thing we need to decide as a committee is how to deal with new kinds of protocol (e.g., BTP) that come along.
Xlink out to external document
Marty wonders whether we can use the same interface as we use for BPSS, rather than treat BTP as a completely new thing.
The TC members reviewed Suresh's late arriving comments. One main discovery was that BPSS 1.04 changes had made text and one information item in CPPA out of phase. The responses and original comments are to eventually appear in a comment database. This database is to be assembled over the next few months.
We discussed the possibility of correcting some minor errors in the specification before forwarding it to OASIS. These include some items pointed out by Suresh and a few other things that came up. Discussion will continue during the June 5 session of the F2F.
Wednesday, June 5
Prioritization of Enhancements and Initiatives: Consensus view appears to be that the following will be the main priorities over the next 6 months:
Technical extensibility of CPPA and Statement of direction, for use in BTP and WS projects.
Action Item. Dale - Update negotiation spreadsheet. Post question of use cases exist for need to negotiate values for some information items. Action Item. Pallavi - Update the Web services sub team Action Item. Tony - Action Item. Brian - BPSS BTP document posting Action Item. Add compatibility list for JCC profile document and submit to JC Chair. Action Item. Ask JC group and Karl about maintenance options for all ebXML specifications. Action Items December is the official end of charter. Can recharter if more time needed?
Or form new TC if maintenance known and residual focus need scope rechartering. Action Items Find a technical editor and an author for web service subteam. And find authors. Action Item. Brian and Dale arrive at a plan to coordinate Web Service and BTP projects. Action Item. Initialization of Issues Database. Action Item. Initialization of Comment Database. Action Item. Some web site updates are needed. June 6 and 7 targeted. Action Item. Ask Doug Bunting about the XML issues format.
Action Item: Decide how to proceed with proposed aggregated list of minor Fixes for CPPA 2.0 Version Recognized at Fourth Face-To-Face Conference.The following nine items were identified during discussions of Yukinori's and Suresh's comments.
1. line 755 pdf two closing element tags</OverrideMshActionBinding> first should be opening tag.
2. initiatingRole and respondingRole - language change impacts
lines 1236, 1237...
But see also
line 5638 (refers to v1.03).
lines 5710 5713 (BPSS instance)
3. isSecureTransport - has been dropped, do we care if we have
attribute not in BPSS?
4. line 1034 zero or more should be zero or one for
5. Remove id attribute in example on CollaborationRole line 908
6. line 1377, 1379, 6497 Business Collaboration replace by Binary Collaboration
7. appendix e, capitalize and italics for Business Collaboration
8. section 6 and 7.1, use plural in CPA line 396, line 458
9. CPA expiration when End or invocationLimit hit, whichever first.
NOTE: The invocationLimit attribute sets a limit on the number of units of Business that can be performed under the CPA. It is a Business parameter, not a performance parameter. A CPA expires whichever terminating condition (End or invocationLimit) is first reached.
11:00 Voting session
Priorities summarized by chair.
Chair reviewed minor problems caused by CPPA 2.0 misalignment with BPSS 1.04 and asked the TC members to consider how to proceed. Chair pointed out that documents had not yet been sent off.
Tony Fletcher moved to remove the isSecureTransport attribute on BusinessTransactionCharacteristics. Pallavi seconded. After discussion, 8 yes votes with 3 abstains. Text in appendices, main body, examples, and schema will be purged of references to the attribute. This will align with BPSS 1.X versions.
Marty moved to adopt the bundle of changes mentioned above. Peter Ogden seconded. After discussion, the motion was accepted unanimously. This entails that the BPSS instance document for the 3A4 RN BP be modified. Arvola will modify and Pallavi will verify. Dale will insert modified documents and make the other editorial changes. The target is June 6 for all changes to be made and checked.
The teleconference for this week will be canceled. Next Friday the teleconferences will resume.
Motion to adjourn approved unanimously.
Noon: End of sessions