Minutes
of CPPA Negotiation Conference Call Nov. 20, 2002
Attendees:
Neelakantan Kartha, Monica Martin, Dale Moberg, Marty Sachs, and Hima
Mukkamala
- Monica
asked to what extent we had used the Negotiation Pattern document in
developing the concepts for CPPA Negotiation. Marty indicated the original document
was used and they had not seen an update, although one had been expected.
- Team
agreed to change the conference call starting time to 3 p.m. EST
starting January 2003.
- Monica
asked about any business level agreement, and how that affected the CPPA
Negotiation (see email 18 November 2002). Sachs will revise the choreography
description in line with questions from Monica, and Hima will also provide
updates.
- 2 p.m. start through
December 4, 11 and 18, 2002 with Sachs sponsoring the call with an
international call in number.
- What
should be the appropriate name for a negotiation instance document? Monica
suggested that we replace BPSS instance with a new name to conform to
terminology discussed in the BPSS team.
Marty Sachs has a problem with not using the ‘instance document’
that is commonly used with reference to a document that conforms to an XML
schema. Kartha disagreed with use
of any term that included ‘specification.’
Hima proposed “Negotiation Business
Process” Marty proposed adding the words “instance document” .This must
agreed upon by the full CPPA team (Sachs).
Sachs suggested this item be deferred to
the full team (Next meeting is first Friday in December, December 6) and
ask Brian Hayes to attend.
- Jean Zheng has responded to Kartha’s comments. This will be
discussed on the list.
- What
happens if a suspension occurs to a negotiation dialog? Can we have a
consensus to delay after version 1.0?
Agreed to place this in the future’s document. Check against Jean’s
work.
- Section 13.10.2
- Martin question if
the responder does not send a reply at what point does the initiator send
a reject to end the negotiation dialog, as this is not required of
initiator? Otherwise, the
negotiation dialog is not officially closed. Kartha felt that the text was
acceptable as is. The team decided
to say that if the initiator doesn’t receive a response, he will record
the dialog as expired. Ask Hima to provide a response.
- In
second paragraph, update to read: If the acceptance interval expires
without a response, the initiator SHALL record the current Negotiation
Dialogue as expired.
- What
is the acceptance interval? Can timeToPerform handle this? Yes, for the
binary collaboration. Clarify with Hima or
Brian for final decision.
- Delete:
Note that in this scenario, neither the initiator nor the responder
SHALL terminate the Negotiation Dialog until the reject message
has been sent by the initiator.
- Kartha
asked everyone to review Jean’s response. This will be discussed at the
next call.
The group decided that there not be
any calls the week of Thanksgiving (November 27, 2002).
The call was adjourned at 2:55 PM US Eastern time.
Respectfully submitted,
Monica J. Martin