Folks, Today we gone through a good amount of discussion in the call on this. I'm comfortable with trying to find a better placement of the things in this way. I also appreciate Pete's time check today:-) I think it's valuable for us to brainstorm this so that we can have a logically correct, feasible and adoptable specification for our purpose. Having said that, I'd like to clarify the real point of the discussion: At first I thought it is a matter of whether register() or create(), then it turned out that it is the use case where the archive is created. Now it again becomes ambiguous to me what is the real matter behind the two different definitions for AA (or AA file). I'd like to ask everyone which of the below is the real issue we are facing: - Name for the things to be registered; i.e. AA file in my diagram, or Archive description and Application contents file(s) (includes DD) in Tom's one. If this is an issue, I can be so much flexible about how we can call it (them). - A physical format of the archive; a zip is described in the strawman. If this is an issue, we can focus on this topics. However, it is not mentioned as this so far. - Partial update of the archive in the repository (It seems to me a separate issue that can be discussed independently.) - Assuming IDE products to be bound to ACS specification (IMHO, it's desirable, but the decision remains up to the vendors.) - Or anything else? FYI, when I say we will standardize transport format of AA, it is to me means to define: - An XML schema of the Archive Descriptor (AD). - At least one physical format of the archive that contains everything needed either in real entity or in external reference. - Required piece of information (or file), optional one and extension mechanisms in an archive besides the AD. Is it a wrong assumption? Please be open to discussion. I'm trying to be fair in the process. I'm just struggling for the best way to address to everyones points. I appreciate any contributions to improve our concept. Thanks in advance! -Keisuke