David,
The thrust of the prior discussion was along the lines of "it can't be
done". From that viewpoint, it is sufficient to develop an existence proof
consisting of one way of doing whatever it is (generating the necesary
configuration information). Certainly, there is nothing in the CPP-CPA
specification that precludes RosettaNet or any other industry community
from setting up a small number of prototype CPAs that members of the
community can use.
The CPPA team is always happy to receive suggestions for improving the
CPP-CPA definition although we would not be too happy to receive a proposal
to simply eliminate it.
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
*************************************************************************************
"Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com> on 07/25/2001 12:50:31 PM
To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc: "'Arvola Chan'" <arvola@tibco.com>, David Fischer
<david@drummondgroup.com>, ebXML Msg
<ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>, Pete Wenzel
<Pete.Wenzel@RosettaNet.org>
Subject: RE: PIP IDs
Marty
Apologies for the delay in responding ... I've been busy elsewhere.
I agree with everything you say about how databases work and how they
**could** be used to solve the problem. It's just that you are
pre-supposing
a particular internal design for a solution when there are other
alternatives. I also disagree that the information **has** to be entered
into each partners system.
For example, a community of users, e.g. RosettaNet could define a set of
three or four standard "agreements" that everyone should use for messaging
which exclude partner specific information, e.g. URLs and certificates. The
URL and other information could then be recorded in a registry (UDDI?)
which
a trading partner could look up to determine where to send a message. This
information could also be cached.
Once the URL was determined, then a message could be sent where the CPAId
referenced one of the "standard" agreements. If the sender of the message
was not previously to the message recipient then they could look up the
information in the registry and decide what to do with the message.
Marty, I am not saying that your approach is wrong, it's just that there
are
alternaive equally valid approaches which the current definition of the CPA
does not easily support. I think we should support both. Do you agree?
David