Marty,
I don't know where the TC went today with this,
but my comments are inlined. I may be missing some
important ideas, in which case, I look forward to getting educated.
Regards,
-Suresh
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 8:02 AM
To: Damodaran, Suresh
Cc: 'ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org'; ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] CPA & MS overriding parameters
Suresh,
I have the benefit of not having spent 3 hours on the phone yesterday.
<sd>
I would say that is a real benefit:-)
</sd>
The CPA documents policy agreed to by two parties. If one party can
override information in the CPA, that party is violating the agreement.
<sd>
Absolutely. The flip side is, if both parties agree that some parts of the
agreement
MAY be overridden under certain situations, that also is reasonable?
</sd>
The CPA can identify that parameters that both parties agree can be
overridden. But then, why bother putting them in the CPA at all? Once you
decide that the MS can override the CPA, there is no reason to put those
parameters in the CPA. Let them just be dynamic parameters.
<sd>
The parameters that can be overridden are in CPA also because
in some cases parties may decide that these MUST not be overridden,
and state so in the policy (we may not have such a mechanism in CPA,
but the CPA TC may consider having it)
<sd/>
I don't understand the point about the CPA and MS work proceeding
independently. That would imply that no coordination is needed. Since the
main job of the CPA is to provide configuration information to the MSH, it
makes absolutely no sense to let them get out of sync.
<sd>
You are absolutely right. They should not get out of synch. But the
discussion
of where a parameter should be placed not be allowed to tie up the
discussion of either TC either. The same parameter could be in both message
header or CPA, except that whether it MAY be overridden should also be in
the CPA.
</sd>
Regards,
Marty
****************************************************************************
*********
Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
****************************************************************************
*********
"Damodaran, Suresh" <Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com> on 11/13/2001 06:28:59
PM
To: "'ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org'" <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc:
Subject: [ebxml-msg] CPA & MS overriding parameters
Hi All,
After hearing the discussion today over the phone on CPA parameters
overriding
MS parameters, I have to make the following case (a possible compromise):
If CPA is indeed a document that captures policy, then CPA may also
specify which MS parameters that the parties to the CPA wants
to override using the values in the CPA (the duplication serves as a check,
if necessary). This allows for both business cases
where CPA values are never overridden, and the other business case
of MSG overriding some values.
The advantage of this approach is that CPA work can proceed independent
of MS and vice versa. We may think of making OPTIONAL any parameter
that must also appear in CPA. We may be even able to create MSH and CPA
independently.
The only issue now is to consider what the default behavior is.
Since there are only a few parameters that are under discussion, perhaps
letting MS override
CPA might be a good default. I can live with the other way around also.
Just my 2 cents worth of wisdom after cramping my neck listening in for
3 hours of back and forth arguments and votes.
Regards,
-Suresh
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>