CPA Negotiation Conference Call Minutes – 02 January, 2002

taken by Peter Ogden

Attendees

Marty Sachs (IBM)

Bob Kearney (IBM)

Neelakantan Kartha (Sterling)

Jean Zheng (Vitria)

Dale Moberg (Cyclone Commerce)

Peter Ogden (Cyclone Commerce)

Administrivia

The Negotiation calls for the remainder of this month will occur on 01/09, 01/16, and 01/23. We will have a face-to-face meeting after the regular CPPA TC meeting in San Francisco on 01/28-30.

Marty posted the latest version of the Negotiation Requirements Document, dated 12/20/01, which contains changes from last conference call. Comments were solicited, none given.

Meeting Notes

We continued the line-by-line review of the document, beginning with section 2.7 in this latest version (Negotiation.req.20Dec01.doc).

Marty noted that a party might have multiple NDDs. In opening dialog of the negotiation process, each party supplies the NDD it wishes to use for that negotiation.

Lines 274-276 – Agreement on revised wording.

Lines 278-281 – Agreement on new notes describing the relationship between CPP and NDD.

Lines 284-287 – Okay.

Line 288 – Will be removed, decided not to advertise any "ranges" in CPP.

Line 289 – Okay.

Lines 290-292 – Okay up to and including "… (e.g., prices)", everything else to be removed.

Line 293 – Decided that order of preference is always determined in CPP (in version 2.0 and beyond), so this line will be removed. A note is to be added to the CPP spec indicating that order of preference in cases where multiple alternatives are provided will be determined by the order in which the alternatives appear in the CPP.

Lines 294-295 – Okay.

Lines 296-298 – Will be left in as a reminder that we either we need to treat this in the Negotiation spec, or mention in an appendix as a possible "future".

Line 299 – make a note that more work in CPP/A is needed before this can be addressed (currently, there is no reason to address preference ordering among certificates since only a single certificate can be specified where one is needed). Dale suggested that we’d be better off spending time figuring out the mechanism for human interaction required when the parties’ certificates and trust anchors don’t match up (that is, how to allow additional cert/anchors to be provided, or allow a cert to be accepted even though the partner didn’t provide the appropriate trust anchor). We need a comment under this item that indicates that this is the mechanism by which trust models based on self-signed certificates will be supported.

Line 300-312 – agreed we want this, but the details of how it needs to work depend on the current work being done on ActionBinding. WRT negotiating new combinations of Transport/DocExchange, we’re NOT talking about adding new elements, just making new combinations of ones that existed in original CPPs. Also, as a child element of line 299 we need a comment that this is the mechanism that will allow self-signed certificates to work.

Lines 313-315 – negotiation states. Decided that for now we don’t need any additional states, though more could be added later if needed. Regarding the need for finer-grained (per-section) indicators, I think we decided to defer this until a firm requirement appears. Dale pointed out that per-section indicators could help the negotiation process itself keep track of what’s been done so far, which led Mary to believe that these lines belong in their own section because they’re not related to the NDD itself but rather to the flow of negotiation messages.