| Date | Comment |
|---|
| October 13th, 2003 | Any non ebXML XML schemas such as w3c DigitalSignatureXML. |
| October 13th, 2003 | The ds:Reference in the ProcessSpecification element is not considered. |
| October 9th, 2003 | Check of BusinessTransactionCharacteristics: basic test: all attributes have equal values. Maybe first step dont care of XML referencing problem. |
| October 9th, 2003 | when checking timeToAcknowledgeReceipt, timeToAcknowledgeAcceptance and timeToPerform then check if goes togehter with ReceiptAcknowledgment or AcceptanceAcknowledgement bindings, also check against syncReplyMode. |
| October 7th, 2003 | Basically only asynchronous transportation is supported. eg no nested Can[Send|Receive]'s -> no MessageCharacteristics syncReplyMode. But result in a switch to enable a) sync only b) asynch only and c) both. default would be both. |
| October 7th, 2003 | The ThisPartyActionBinding can have more than one ChannelId elements. This is used to allow parties to have a preference among several transport protocols for example. The algorithm does handle only 1 ChannelId. |
| October 6th, 2003 | Serious testing framework. Currently only modified CPPs are taken for testing. |
| March 10th, 2003 | At this stage a draft CPA is created from two CPPs. Negotiation not implicit for start with a CPA draft. |
| March 10th, 2003 | Multiparty CPPs not considered |
| March 10th, 2003 | Nested CanSend/CanReceive not considered |
March 10th, 2003 | Certificates not considered. Actually only copied. Reference to them are not considered. |
| March 10th, 2003 | Security Lists not considered. |
| March 10th, 2003 | No XML Schema for Conflict File |
| March 10th, 2003 | Referenced BusinessProcess in //CollaborationRole/ProcessSpecification/@name not processed |
| March 10th, 2003 | Roles in //CollaborationRole/Role/@name not checking referenced BusinessProcess in //CollaborationRole/ProcessSpecification/@name. Simple check that roles are NOT the same. |
| March 11th, 2003 | ServiceBinding/Service element not considered (copied blindly). |
| June, 2nd, 2003 | ServiceBinding/CanSend or ServiceBinding/CanReceive elements which are not used are not put into the conflict file. |
| March 11th, 2003 | ServiceBinding/Can[Send|Receive]/ThisPartyActionBinding/ActionContext not considered. |
| March 11th, 2003 | ServiceBinding/Can[Send|Receive]/ThisPartyActionBinding/BusinessTransactionCharacteristics checked but not considered (for DocExchange, Packaging etc). |
| March 14th, 2003 | Element /CPP/Packaging/CompositeList/Encapsulation not considered |
| March 14th, 2003 | Element /CPP/Packaging/CompositeList/Constituent/SignatureTransforms not considered |
| March 14th, 2003 | Element /CPP/Packaging/CompositeList/Constituent/EncryptionTransforms not considered |
| March 17th, 2003 | Case where one /CPP/Packaging/ has more CompositeList elements than the other is not considered |
| March 17th, 2003 | Case where one /CPP/Packaging/CompositeList/ has more Constituent elements than the other is not considered |
| March 17th, 2003 | Order of /CPP/Packaging/CompositeList and /CPP/Packaging/CompositeList/Constituent elements seen as correct. |
| March 17th, 2003 | Element /CPP/SimplePart/@xlink:role not considered. |
| March 17th, 2003 | Element /CPP/Packaging/CompositeList/Constituent/@idref ONLY considered to be a SimplePart reference. |
| March 17th, 2003 | Order of /CPP/SimplePart/Namespace elements is not considered. Namespaces are pairwise compared in order. |
| March 31th, 2003 | If /Transport/TransportSender and /Transport/TransportReceiver are empty at both parties then they have to get negotiated. Not implemented. Basically it would have to be looked up in the CanSend/CanReceive elements which element (TransportSender, TransportReceiver) is necessary for each party. |
| March 31th, 2003 | /Transport/TransportSender/AccessAuthentication and /Transport/TransportSender/AccessAuthentication does only check for matches and then takes the first match. |
| April 1st, 2003 | ClientCertificateRef (in TransportClientSecurity), ServerCertificateRef (in TransportServerSecurity) not implemented. |
| April 1st, 2003 | ServerSecurityDetailsRef (in TransportClientSecurity), ClientSecurityDetailsRef (in TransportServerSecurity) not implemented. |
| April 1st, 2003 | tns:EncryptionAlgorithm in (TransportClientSecurity and TransportServerSecurity) not implemented. |
| April 1st, 2003 | Endpoint (in TransportReceiver) not implemented. |
| April 5th, 2003 | SigntureAlgorithm in NonRepudiationProtocol not implemented. SignatureAlgorithm can have many occurances. Priority?? (read up) |
| April 5th, 2003 | SigningCertificateRef in NonRepudiationProtocol not implemented. Possilbe referencing prolem (matrix possible solution) |
| April 5th, 2003 | EncryptionAlgirthm in SenderDigitalEnvelope and ReceiverDigitalEnvelope not implemented. Multiplicity problem. Priority?? (read up) |
| April 5th, 2003 | EncryptionSecurityDetailsRef in SenderDigitalEnvelope and EcnryptionCertificateRef in ReceiverDigitalEnvelope not implemented. Possible eferencing problem |
| April 7th, 2003 | If there are elements, attributes which occur in CPP A only the conflict is not added! (should not be hard, just needs time). |
| June 2nd, 2003 | Matrix output is not nice. the matrix is write just is printed wrong. |
| June 2nd, 2003 | Comments from CPP's are not taking into CPA. Should be done. |
| June 12th, 2003 | Negotiation Description Documents (NDDs) are not considered. |
| June 12th, 2003 | Cardinality issues. Whenever there is a maxOccurs > 1 |
| June 13th, 2003 | cpaid attribute, start, stop, status elements not done properly |
| Date | Comment |
|---|
| October, 13th, 2003 | Evaluation of first to get rid off ALL references by deep-clone (copy including all child elements) Watch out to also change ID attributes and IDREF elements or attributes. |
| October, 13th, 2003 | After buisness level check the BusinessTransactionCharacteristics (BTC). Values in the BTC (if secure transport is needed for example) could tell the algorithm which (additiaional, amongst the necessary ones (eg Transport protocol)) elements in the transport and delivery channel have to be checked. In this case elements which are not necessary (according to BTC) dont get checked and thus dont get into the CPA. Referencing is again a problem. To be checked: If transport has elements which are used/neccessary in one CanSend (according to BTC) but not in another CanSend and is referenced in both can cause problems. This question needs further investigation. |
| October, 13th, 2003 | Implementation list of which aspects of the BTC (which attributes) are considered. |
| October, 8th, 2003 | Provide a list with the main messaging/business aspects such as reliability, non-repduiation, and confidentility. Further provide a table which show all attributes from BusinessTransactionCharacteristics and MessagingCharacteristics and to which aspect they belong. |
| October, 7th, 2003 | Multiple ChannelIds in the ThisPartyActionBinding. Imposes a very interesting question: What is a defining element (TransportProtocol?, MessagingCharacteristics?, Transport element or one of its children?, DocumentExchange or one of its children?). Theoreticallly comparing many to many and to try to list those which match or match best. |
| October, 7th, 2003 | REXML element.elements['my_element'] returns the _first_ element with the name my_element. Missed ChannelId element in ThisPartyActionBinding element due to this :( The number of elments should be Check with element.get_elements('my_elment').size first. After a successful test a child element should be accessed. |
| April, 4th, 2003 | Add methods to remove copy pased code. |
| June, 13th, 2003 | Currently the Conflict File is part of this early version. The conflict file is in some way the Negotiation Description Document (NDD) for the draft CPA. Further version should change from conflict file to a proper NDD. |