bt-spec message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: [bt-spec] FW: Draft response to 'Conformance Requirements forSpecifications' v0.4 14 Jan 02
- From: Tony Fletcher <tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com>
- To: BT - spec <bt-spec@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 15:01:29 +0000
Dear Bill and other
BTPers,
Here is a draft
response to 'Conformance Requirements
for Specifications' v0.4 14 Jan 02 that you sent around awhile
ago for you to review. My assumption is that you would like to receive responses and
will produce a response from the BTP team based on the responses
received.
To the OASIS
Conformance TC team:
The OASIS Business
Transaction Protocol (BTP) TC team have received your document 'Conformance
Requirements for Specifications' v0.4 14 Jan 02 and have attempted to apply it
to our BTP specification.
We have found it a
helpful reminder and guide as to what we should include in our Conformance
section. Given that your document is currently only at version 0.4 we have
not attempted to provide detailed comments at this stage. However, we
would like to make the following comments aimed at helping you to help us
more.
1) We
appreciate that OASIS TCs produce many different kinds of specification
concerning quite different entities which makes providing specific guidance not
easy. However several OASIS specifications concern protocols (as does
ours) and several concern 'processors'. We suggest that for these more
common cases you could provide some more specific guidance.
2) While we
would not want you to be unnecessarily restrictive or proscriptive, it would be
helpful if you were to provide a 'model' conformance clause perhaps as an
informative annex. You might need more than one for the different cases -
e.g. one model for protocol specifications and another for processor
specifications, and perhaps a third very generic one. Taking the protocol
one it would show a recommended order of sub-headings / tackling the
various conformance issues and concerns you address in the main part of
your document. It should also indicate the level of detail one is
recommended to go to.
3) The sample
conformance claim in Appendix A is a good idea but seems to rather miss the
target at present. A proper proforma for Conformance claim proforma would
be helpful. The current text of this appendix seems on one hand to be very
'testing' orientated and on the other does not address the many issues called
out in the main part of your
document (such as for which levels or profiles conformance is claimed, options
implemented / not implemented, and so forth). It has to be born in mind
that standardised test cases / testing suites, etc are unlikely to exist for a
new OASIS specification, and it is not generally worth producing such until the
specification has proved itself in the market place (although we accept the
desirability of standardised testing
to help promote compatibility /
interoperation).
4) With respect to sub-section 8.1.2
Specifying Conformance Claims we suggest that a note is added pointing out that
any requirement for strict conformance should be very carefully considered and
is not usually a good thing as it can prevent sensible interworking of
implementations of later versions with this version.
We hope you find
these thoughts helpful.
Best Regards
Tony
A M Fletcher
Choreology Ltd., 13 Austin Friars, London
EC2N 2JX UK
Tel: +44 (0) 20
76701787 Mobile: +44 (0) 7801
948219
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC