Jean Zheng

Dec. 5, 2001

N Kartha (Sterling)

Bob Kearney (IBM)

Heiko Ludwig (IBM)

Pallavi Malu (Intel)

Dale Moberg (Cyclone)

Marty Sachs (IBM)

Jean Zheng (Vitria)

Everyone is on the list server.

Next call is Dec. 19^th.

This discussion is based on Marty’s updated required document sent out to everyone on Nov. 30.

Last discussion ended in Section 2.2 (old Section 3.2).

Skip 2.4.1 because bootstrapping has been discussed during our last call.

Start with Section 2.3 Automation of CPA Life Cycle

Remove "Discovery" from line 127,

Remove lines 128-131

Add a bullet: Discovery is not on 1.1

Add a bullet: Negotiation will be based on CPA templates

Heiko: What is the algorithm of composition?

Dale: [The algorithm should state] what should be the minimal match of 2 CPP, e.g. Transportation details and delivery channels. A minimal layer of the base of negotiation must be met prior to negotiation. Also, a Guideline for objective of the negotiation is needed. The guideline should describe what’s allowed for simplification, when multiple matches (e.g. transportation mode) are found, which one is preferred. We could adopt a layered approach, based on Appendix. Later we can document it in more detail.

Marty: changes in Section 1.2: line 75 is new.

There is no objections to this change.

Line 135-138 okay

Line 141-145:

Dale has some concerns with 144-145: to state advertisement in CPP might conflict with bootstrapping.

Marty: CPP seems to be the only place where a partner can specify such preference. Convert this bullet to specify that one of the possibilities of the location of such preference is CPP, but CPP doesn’t have to be the only place. Whether there needs to be a default location and where is the default location, that is a design issue.

Dale later suggested that CPA template could be a better place for advertisement. Marty and the group agreed. Dale also suggested placing this bullet in Section 2.4.1

Line 146-152:

A Negotiation CPA could be a few sentences in the spec to describe how to negotiate.

Marty: Is negotiation Service out of scope for 1.1?

Group Decision: leave this in for now as a starting point. As requirements become more complex, it might be in scope for a later phase.

Heiko suggested to add a Glossary towards the end: e.g. CPA Template, Negotiation CPA. Marty agreed.

line 153-174

Marty is to remove the example on line 172 that stated "delivery channel characteristic" cuz it is confusing.

(Add a bullet here to describe "the advertising in CPA template")

Line 175-185

Heiko suggests the scenario where a party has preferential treatment to certain parties based on trust. In this case, the party can create a private CPP that contains these preferences and communicate this with the negotiation service.

Marty explained to Jean that a binary business process can be used to communicate this preference. A private message can be used to describe that certain elements can be negotiated with certain partner but not others. These descriptions are contained in negotiation message passed to negotiation service. And as Heiko suggested a private CPP that contains such info can be the payload of these negotiation messages.

Line 186-200

Marty will change the section title to "Direct Negotiation between two parties".

Line 187-190: Marty will rephrase negotiation service to negotiation protocol. Remove the reference to "local service," limit the discussion to protocol between two parties.

Next call will be in Dec. 19^th, and it will start with section 2.4.4 Some details of the automated negotiation process.