RE: [ebxml-msg] Ebms-3.0_conformanceprofiles-wd-07 issues

["Durand, Jacques R." <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>]

Ric: 

>Am I misunderstanding what the draft is trying to say?

Right, this is an inconsistency. I would correct it by requiring RM
conformance profile (and RX) to support MessageProperties (page 9 to
fix)

>I do not think the profile should require support for MessageOrder

You are referring to J5 test in UCC/EAN test suite, inherited as is in
V2/3 profiles.
I see no problem removing V2 support for ordering, as that is not
required for V3.

Jacques

-----Original Message-----
From: Ric Emery [mailto:remery@us.axway.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 4:14 PM
To: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ebxml-msg] Ebms-3.0_conformanceprofiles-wd-07 issues


1)It looks to be an inconsistency in the Gateway RM V3 - Functional
Aspect - Message Packaging and Gateway RM V3 -
Pmode[1].BusinessInfo.Properties[].

Gateway RM V3 - Functional Aspect - Message Packaging states that
support for MessageProperties is required. See page 6.
Gateway RM V3 - Pmode[1].BusinessInfo.Properties[] states that support
is not required. See Page 9.

Am I misunderstanding what the draft is trying to say?

2) Section 4 Conformance Profile - Gateway RM V2/3 looks to require
support for MessageOrder from Section 9 of the V2 spec. I do not think
the profile should require support for MessageOrder

General question. Do we want to tie the conformance profile draft to
tests in a UCC suite? It seems a bit odd to me. I think the draft should
talk about features from the ebMS 2 specification, not test cases from a
test profile that ebMS vendors may or may not be familiar with or
conformant with. The UCC test is one test profile, we could just as
easily tie the conformance profile to the set of Drummond tests.
Personally I do not think we should do either.

Thanks,
ric