[ebxml-iic-conform] Comments on ebXML MS Conformance Test Requirements

[Michael Wang <mwang@tibco.com>]

I have the following comments on this doc.  Sorry for being so late.

I think test cases urn:semreq:id:93 and urn:semreq:id:94 need to
have their assertions flipped.  Case 93 is for not supported and
so the severity should be Warning (as opposed to Error) and the
other way around for 94.

Test case urn:semreq:id:159: it may be clearer to put in the assertion
exactly what the namespace is rather than the term "XML Signature".

Test case urn:semreq:id:160: it may be clearer to add in the assertion
the specific version/URL of the XML Sig Spec.

Test case urn:semreq:id:179: I actually disagree with this.  Going
back to the spec (line 187) it said nothing about MUST, SHALL.  Why is now
a Required item for conformance?
If I remember correctly the Messaging Committee had trouble agreeing
on this specific issue: sign first vs encrypt first.  The supporter
for sign first then encrypt happens to be the editor and so he decided
to put in as a NOTE.
We must note that the encryption here is related to Payload encryption.
As such the application layer would have encrypted it before passing
it to the MSH layer for signing and shipping.  Therefore, it does not
make sense to do Signing then encryption.
I believe this item should be made Optional and ask the Messaging
Committee for clarification.

Test case urn:semreq:id:190: I think the assertion is incorrect.
It should say Timestamp element IS present as opposed to not present.

Test case urn:semreq:id:191: I think the precondition should have
an additional condition that the request is not supported/authorized.
By itself the way it is the assertion does not make sense.

Test case urn:semreq:id:193: I think it needs the additional precondition
of "RefToMessageId element value is recognized and not yet processed".

Test case urn:semreq:id:194: I think it needs the additional precondition
of "RefToMessageId element value is recognized and is processed".

Test case urn:semreq:id:197: I think the assertion should be reworded.
Signature element may not exist.  It is only there is the channel
requires signing of documents.

Test case urn:semreq:id:198: Same comment as in 197.

I may have missed some discussion on this but how do I tell from
this document what's level 1 conformance and what level 2?

-mw