2) added appropriate Action names to Test
Requirements Preconditions
For some reason, the TOC is corrupted, and (
includes text from the document in the TOC)
It may have to do with the Test Requirements
Table.
In any event, in order for people to get a
review of the specification, I am submitting the merged
document for review by the TC.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 11:37
PM
Subject: [ebxml-iic-interop] comments on
latest BIP
Mike:
Main updates I propose and/or comments: (se doc
attached)
- Your delete of the "conformance clause " is fine
(section 1.4), as discussed at last meeting.
[MIKE] - OK , I removed this and merged
it
- BIP parameter table misses 3 entries I believe.
(see in attached updated copy)
[MIKE] _ Added these 3 entries and merged it
...although I am still unsure of the meaning of the TimeToLive parameter,
since it is a finite time ( often called "TimeToDie", since that is what it
truly represents. My question is, what value, either as a "profile"
parameter representing the context of a test case or as a real hard-coded
parameter in a test suite.. could this have? Especially since it
is the result of computation of RetryInterval plus Retries.. both of which are
ALREADY BIP parameters? I think that a "TimeToDie" parameter would have
more meaning ( as a "delta" time interval indicating how long a message should
be "alive" after being sent ). This would be useful for conformance
testing ( especially with its CPA agnostic Test Driver ).. but again
would not have much relevance for interop testing. Comments?
- Test case 1.5 cannot have same parameter set
(CPA) as case 1.6 (mshc_4):
1.5 is async
and signed, and 1.6 is synchronous and not signed.
It seems that we still need the additional table column mshc_5 for
1.6:
mshc_5 = same as mshc_3, but
with syncReplyMode = "signalsAndResponse" instead.
[MIKE] - Agreed.. added "mshc_5 column in table and
merged it based upon above info. Will also update external executable test
suite to reflect reference to "mshc_5 CPAId in test #1.6
- updated some figures that needed to: Fig 11 (you
forgot to report my update)
and Fig 7
(should not say "signed M1").
[MIKE] - OK - merged
- in 3.2, I reduced and reworded the section you
have deleted,
because I think we should
still distinguish and describe these "profile options"
before and independently from the parameters of the the test
suite they map to:
In other words, there
are two different things:
(a)- the MS-BIP,
which is a profile of interoperability (with its options).
(b)- the "MS-BIP test suite", which verifies the MS-BIP
(with its parameters)
We want to require
people to specify the options of the MS-BIP they are claiming to interoperate
with,
(and these options will be quoted in
future certificates or badges)
at a more
abstract level than the test suite and its corresponding parameters.
So I have separated both in two different
sections: 3.2 and 3.3...
[MIKE] - OK - merged
- I do have a problem with the req table in
4.2,
because the reqs are too inquisitive
as worded: as the test cases are verified
at application level, we cannot make any requirement on the header
content, etc,
like we do in conformance. We
can only make "app level" reqs.
I
have tried to reword the 5 first test cases.
If fixing this table takes too much effort, we don't need to include
it...
[MKE] - I like the modifications... they are more
concrete. One reason for including this
table in the specification is that it is actual
"Test Material" required by the ebXML Test Framework to run
the executable Test Suite. Also, Test Suite
Specificatsions generally include Test Requirements as part of their
specification.. so this is good to
have.
The only modification that I made to them was
adding all of the "Action" names in the preconditions.. which I
think
clarify the requirement.
Cheers,
Jacques
<<BIP0.92.zip>>