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