OASIS ebXML Messaging Services TC

[ebxml-msg] minutes of nov-13 f2f meeting

  • 1.  [ebxml-msg] minutes of nov-13 f2f meeting

    Posted 11-14-2001 08:40
    OASIS Messaging TC Face 2 Face Nov 13-15, 2001
    
    November 13, 2001
    
    - Role
    East Coast
    Dan Weinreb
    Ian Jones
    Ralph Berwanger
    Colleen Evans
    Bruce Pedretti
    Shirley Wu - non-voting
    Sally Wang - non-voting
    Chris Ferris
    
    West Coast
    David Burdett
    David Fischer
    Doug Bunting
    Brian Gibb
    Brad Lund
    Iwasa
    Dale Moberg
    Jaques Durand - non-voting
    Jeff Turpin - non-voting
    Cliff Collins - non-voting
    Hima
    Arvola Chan
    
    - Selection of secretary - Chris volunteers for 13th
    - David Burdett - reverse routing proposal, lengthy discussion. move to 
    reconsider for v2.0.
    
    Lunch/Breakfast
    
    - motion raised by David F, do we remove TraceHeaderList? Ralph seconds.
        discussion:
            Sybase indicates that they do use THL for the Sender URL to 
    respond to PING
            in a manner similar to what DB described in his reverse routing 
    discussion
            used to be called routing header, but the name was changed 
    because that was not
            its intened use. DB says it is really the decision of the 
    business. Ralph agrees.
            Dale mentioned that v1.1 of CPPA will have deliveryChannels 
    specified for
            the MSH services
    vote
        against:
            Colleen Evans
        abstain:
            none
        agree:
            Dan Weinreb
            Ralph Berwanger
            Bruce Pedretti
            Chris Ferris   
            David Burdett
            David Fischer
            Doug Bunting
            Brian Gibb
            Brad Lund
            Iwasa
            Dale Moberg
            Hima
            Arvola Chan
    
    motion passes
    
    - motion to remove DeliveryReceipt raised by Chris, David Fischer seconds
        discussion: Doug argued that DR and Ack are essentially identical in 
    their
            use and semantic behavior.
    vote
        against:
            none
        abstain:
            none
        agree:
            Dan Weinreb
            Ralph Berwanger
            Colleen Evans
            Bruce Pedretti
            Chris Ferris
            David Burdett
            David Fischer
            Doug Bunting
            Brian Gibb
            Brad Lund
            Iwasa
            Dale Moberg
            Hima
            Arvola Chan
    
    motion passes
    
    - discusion of syncReply attribute. really only needed when there are 
    intermediaries.
        Chris suggests that creating a new element SyncReply with 
    actor="next" would
        really be needed. Doug agrees. Need to target next SOAP node, not 
    just next
        MSH node.
    
    - motion to remove syncReply from everywhere raised by Brad Lund, David 
    Fischer
        seconds
        discussion: Ian asks, does this mean that there is no way to request 
    that the
            connection be held open. Dale says that this is up to the 
    configuration of
            the two endpoints to work out. Doug restates Chris' apparent 
    proposal for
            a SyncReply element replacing Via (that only has syncReply 
    attribute now
            anyway).
        Chris offers friendly amendment to Brad's motion to add SyncReply 
    SOAP extension
        element targetted at actor=next with mustUnderstand.
    vote
        abstain:
            none
        against:
            none
        agree:
            Dan Weinreb
            Ralph Berwanger
            Colleen Evans
            Bruce Pedretti
            Chris Ferris
            David Burdett
            David Fischer
            Doug Bunting
            Brian Gibb
            Brad Lund
            Iwasa
            Dale Moberg
            Hima
            Arvola Chan
    
    motion passes
    
    - motion to remove Via raised by David F, Chris seconds
    vote
        against:
            David Burdett
        abstain:
            none
        agree:
            Dan Weinreb
            Ralph Berwanger
            Colleen Evans
            Bruce Pedretti
            Chris Ferris
            David Fischer
            Doug Bunting
            Brian Gibb
            Brad Lund
            Iwasa
            Dale Moberg
            Hima
            Arvola Chan
    
    motion passes
    
    YALDAWONTIAC (yet another lengthy discussion about whether or not there 
    is a CPA)
    
    Ian asks everyone to consider the notion that the ebXML MSH does not 
    support
    spontaneous unnegotiated e-commerce
    
    lunch/break
    
    Ian relinquishes chair to Brian Gibb
    Brian accepts chair
    
    motion raised by Ian - limit scope of v1.1 to pre-existing trade 
    agreements (eg. CPA), Chris seconds
    discussion:
        Brian, so what? how is this actionable? not clear that this motion 
    accomplishes. too general
        and not specific enough. Ralph hole in the spec because we don't say 
    how to address
        conflicts between message and "CPA". David, should be able to send a 
    message to
        somebody without any prior agreement. Ralph, thinks that most 
    businesses do operate
        under an agreement. Brian agrees that is his experience. David; what 
    happens when the
        messages need to be changed? how is this handled? is the 
    contract/agreement renegotiated?
    vote
        against:
            David Burdett
            David Fischer
            Hima
        abstain:
            Iwasa
        agree:
            Dan Weinreb
            Ian Jones
            Ralph Berwanger
            Colleen Evans
            Bruce Pedretti
            Chris Ferris
            Doug Bunting
            Brian Gibb
            Brad Lund
            Dale Moberg
            Arvola Chan
    
    motion carries
    
    motion by Ian: add wording to section 1.1.4 strong recommendation to 
    read and understand CPPA specification and its implications on 
    implementation, Dale seconds
    
        discussion: David; you need to have information equivalent to what 
    is available in CPA. Colleen, calls out line 418
    in v1.08 which seems to say this already. Ian; still need the strong 
    recommendation...
    vote
        against:
        abstain:
            Brad Lund
            Doug Bunting   
            David Burdett
            Iwasa
            David Fischer
            Hima
        agree:
            Dan Weinreb
            Ian Jones
            Colleen Evans
            Bruce Pedretti
            Chris Ferris
            Dale Moberg
            Arvola Chan
            Ralph Berwanger
    
    motion carries
    
    motion raised by Ian; In section 1.1.4 add wording for an assumption 
    that a pre-existing trading relationship
    and agreement exists between the two parties, Dan seconds.
    
        discussion:
            Colleen; we already have wording in the con-ops section (~line 
    415 in section 1.2.3), should be
            sufficient. Dale agrees. Chris agrees. Doug; this conflicts with 
    line 399. Others think it consistent.
            Doug; why is this mentioned twice? Ralph; David B, section 1.2 
    is normative in the spec, right?
            so as normative text, we really don't need to make this change 
    to caveats and assumptions, do we?
    vote
        against:
            Ralph Berwanger
            Colleen Evans
            Bruce Pedretti
            Chris Ferris
            David Burdett
            Doug Bunting
            Brian Gibb
            Brad Lund
            Iwasa
            Dale Moberg
            Arvola Chan
        abstain:
            Hima
            David Fischer
        agree:
            Ian Jones
            Dan Weinreb
    
    motion does not pass
    
    Ian; why were we arguing, we never changed anything. David F; because we 
    made an agreement
    in the spring not to require a CPA.
    
    Brian relinquishes chair to Ian
    Ian accepts chair
    
    Ian; what do we want to do about duplicateElimination/idempotency? Is 
    this an issue?
    Dale; yes, it is for CPPA. need to add duplicate elimination. Doug; it 
    is up to the higher levels
    of the application to determine whether the receiving MSH should filter 
    out duplicates, or whether
    it can treat the (duplicate) message in an idempotent manner. Placing 
    duplicateElimination
    in the header is misplaced. It is also something that does not need to 
    be directly reflected
    in the CPA. Dale; detecting duplicates has to be agreed by both sender 
    and receiver.
    DavidB; so you're saying that idempotency is related to the service and 
    action? DavidF
    wonders: say I'm sending a bunch of EDI messages to the same service and 
    action? Would
    it change on a message by message basis? DavidF thinks Chris is right! 
    for a given service
    and action, duplicate elimination is not going to change, put it in the CPA.
    
    motion by Doug; remove QOSInfo and move DE attribute as a parameter in 
    the section
    that discusses parameters that are necessary to configure an MSH. Chris 
    seconds.
    
        discussion:
        Ralph; wants to raise what was agreed in the Dallas meeting about 
    what we agreed
        to do for 1.1. If we don't draw a line in the sand, then 1.1 may as 
    well be 2.0. Frustrated
        that we're doing something to QOS or another of the elements. David 
    F asks, yeah, why are
        we making this change. Dan; because there is an inconsistency (bug) 
    in the spec because
        we don't say to an implementer what to do when DE says one thing and 
    the CPA says another!
    
    vote
        against:
            bruce, ralph, colleen, david, david, iwasa, hima, brad, brian
        abstain:
            none
        agree:
            doug, dale, arvola, chris, dan
    
    motion does not pass
    
    motion raised by Ralph; we agree that one or the other (message header 
    or CPA) takes precedence.
    Colleen seconds. David F thirds.
        DavidF offers friendly amendment that the CPA takes precedence. 
    Colleen offers friendly
        amendment to amendment CPA or its equivalent.
        revised motion: we agree that the CPA or its equivalent takes 
    precedence over the messageheader.
    
    discussion:
        a bunch of side discussions.
    against:
        dan, david, david, ralph, colleen, Ian (tie-break)
    abstain:
        brad, iwasa, doug, brian
    agree:
        dale, arvola, hima, chris, bruce
    
    motion does not pass
    
    motion raised by DB; information in the header actually overrides info 
    in the CPA.
    
    discussion:
        Ralph; seems like we're trying to engineer this on the fly. The 
    longer we chase this
        rabbit around the tree, the more likely we'll make an incorrect 
    decision. Ralph wants
        time to think about this, suggest we table 'til morning.
    
    meeting adjurned