Suresh:
>1. There was a "signed" attribute in your first proposal which seems
>to have disappeared in the second one. Was that a typo?
The "signed" attribute in my first proposal has disappeared from the second
one because it has been replaced by an
AckSignatureRequested
element. This was done in response to Doug Bunting's feedback:
"I like what's been described as two separate Boolean values for
AckRequested in the CPA -- one that controls whether acknowledgements are
supported at all and another that controls whether any supported
acknowledgments may be signed. This proposal seems to eliminate that
separation. A CPA will not be able to say "acknowledgments are required for
this delivery channel and the message will indicate whether signing is
required" or "any requested acknowledgement must be signed".
>2. Please consider "perCPA" instead of "fixed" since we already have
>"perMessage" (unless "fixed" has other semantics)
I agree that "perCPA" is a better enumeration value that "fixed".
>Another problem which may touch upon negotiation is,
>can we have a message that does not require a CPA?
>(don't you need one to bootstrap CPA creation negotiations?)
>Should we have some statement that covers this issue?
I see that Marty has already designated this as a 2.0 issue.
Regards,
-Arvola