OASIS ebXML Collaboration Protocol Profile and Agreement TC
ebXML CPPA Technical Committee Teleconference
March 15, 2002
Tony W. summarized changes for version 1.10 as described in the email distribution on the list. He announced plans to close issues 214 and 221 as resolved unless anyone objects by EOD Monday.
Arvola noted the need to finalize the XSD, which means deciding where to add wildcard elements. Dale will put the matter on the agenda for next week.
Arvola suggested dividing specific sections among team members for review. Dale will work with Tony to assign both sections and open version 2.0 issues to team members.
We discussed the process of reviewing and closing the open issues. Dale was concerned about time. Arvola suggested that team members reviewing issues should propose a resolution or described whatever they feel is not resolved satisfactorily.
We next discussed items from Dale's agenda, some of which are quoted in boldface for context.
Issue 194: (Discussion for up to 20 minutes, ending in proposed action!)
This issue concerns the isConfidential attribute. Marty suggested separating two issues: the need to override isConfidential from BPSS, and saying what isConfidential means. (Brian observed that the BPSS spec is coming out later, so they have more time to work out a definition.) We agreed to simply provide for an override and defer to BPSS for the meaning. Tony will send proposed text to the list.
Potential Issue ???: ApplicationCertificateRef clarifications. More
one needed? What if both signing and encrypting operations
done so that separate application certificates are needed?
(Example of how this happens.) Move ApplicationCertificateRef
under ActionBinding? Change cardinality of element?
There was some sense that business-level signature
should be part of the application payload. Dale thought
that the location of ApplicationCertificateRef in CollaborationRole
was pretty "high up" to repeat it for each
usage. Dale concluded that if there are no proposals
within a couple weeks, we'll drop the issue for 2.0.
Potential Issue ???: Clarification of NamespaceSupported element usage.
Under Packaging and Under DocExchange. BPSS also will mention
Dale mailed out a proposal to the list last night in response to concerns raised by Arvola. Arvola thought the proposal looked fine, but wanted to clarify that it should be okay to have a generic packaging schema that can be used in various places. Arvola already has some editorial suggestions for Dale's Appendix E; he'll make changes based on version 1.10 and send them to Tony for 1.11.
Arvola proposed adopting MSG's example of providing a link to an errata web page in the spec. Tony W. asked what statement is made to vendors about what they must or should implement based on updates to the errata page. Arvola thought since the purpose is to correct errors, implementers must pay attention to it in order to be truly conforming. Dale thought that vendors should check the page before issuing any product updates. David said that the messaging committee had agreed not to make any functional changes on the page. Dale responded that error fixes could introduce functional changes. Following Dale's suggestion and without objection, Tony will add an errata link.
Arvola asked whether we want to have the text of the example appendices in the spec, or just pointers. Dale felt that the text itself was user-friendlier. We agreed that the text should be formatted for readability in the spec.
Any inputs or suggestions about process and procedures that we should
follow (besides the Oasis ones) as we move forward toward a TC
vote on approval?
Dale outlined a procedure going forward: announce to the group that we're in a last call stage getting ready for TC approval, then after resolving TC questions, we'd vote for TC approval and start a (perhaps 45 or 60 day) period of open review. We could have a 2.01 version if fixes are needed, then sometime in May send the result to OASIS.
Considering OASIS policy, Dale raised the need for three implementers to certify their CPPA usage. He indicated that Cyclone Commerce would be in a position to say that, along with Sybase. Arvola thought Tibco might be in such a position by the end of May. Marty thought it unlikely that IBM would be able to say anything in the near future. Dale indicated that it would be sufficient for a company to make usage of an open ebXML implementation.
There will be another teleconference next week on March 22.