Suresh,
The CPP problem is not difficult at all. Each party specificies whatever
values it wants for those elements in its CPP. If there is a mismatch, the
two parties building a CPA have to communicate and come to an agreement
onwhat value to put in the CPA. That's no different from any other CPP/CPA
element. The CPPA specification of course has to document each case where
perMessage is an option but that's also nothing new or different from any
other element.
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 11/21/2001 11:57:15
AM
To: "'Tony Fletcher'" <tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com>,
ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org, ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
cc:
Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] RE: [ebxml-msg] CPA & MS overriding parameters
I am encouraged and hopeful that a solution to this issue will be found
based on the "permessage" idea (as per Dale's earlier email "observer's
report").
The three cases that Tony outlines below may be used
for analysis of individual entries in the CPA.
It is not clear how the "permessage" notion will be built into the CPP.
I plan to wait to see a clear description of the solution before further
commenting.
Regards,
-Suresh