Re: [ebxml-iic] more on message correlation

[Monica Martin <monica.martin@sun.com>]

>     Durand: So I'd propose we go with (e) in the few test cases where
>     the Test Driver needs to answer to a received message.
>     (e.g. Test Cases 90, 107, 114, 141, 142, 147 ... seem to apply)
>      
>     [MIKE] - Agreed.  Because RefToMessageId is an "optional" returned
>     message element, we should only count on it
>     being there in <Acknowledgment>, <MessageStatus> or
>     <StatusResponse> content.  Or unless we specify that
>     <RefToMessageID> MUST be included in responses from all Test
>     Service Actions.  *I think that this would be a valuable*
>     *thing to add to the Test Framework Specification, because it
>     would allow the Test Driver to examine specific response*
>     *messages, and not all messages in the Message Store.  Comments?*
>
mm1: Good idea for the Test Driver.