comments on latest BIP

[Jacques Durand <JDurand@fsw.fujitsu.com>]

Title: 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.

- BIP parameter table misses 3 entries I believe. (see in attached updated copy)

- 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.

- updated some figures that needed to: Fig 11 (you forgot to report my update)
and Fig 7 (should not say "signed M1").

- 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...

- 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...

Cheers,

Jacques

<<BIP0.92.zip>>

BIP0.92.zip