[ebxml-iic-msg] FW: Kass 6/10/2002: Level 2 Draft Requirements

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

Just making this public on our iic_msg list

 

Jacques

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kass [mailto:michael.kass@nist.gov]
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 1:20 AM
To: Jacques Durand; Monica Martin
Cc: matthew MacKenzie
Subject: RE: Kass 6/10/2002: Level 2 Draft Requirements

Jacques,

  Please see my comments 
below:



At 03:59 PM 6/11/2002 -0700, Jacques Durand wrote:

> Mike: 
>   
>
> thanks for the update - let us try to focus on this list 
>   for now, 
> as this is part of our first milestone - 
>   submission to the MS TC. 
>
> Some questions: 
>   
>
> - what is the difference between r1.1.3 and 
>   r1.1.6? 

Reading over the spec references for both 
requirements, I see that 1.1.3 refers to the
"type" attribute of the Message 
Package MIME header, wh3reas r1.1.6 refers to the
"Content-type" attribute of 
the header container.  These are two different attributes, belonging
to 
two different MIME headers, and both are referenced in different parts of the 
specification.
They are both legitimate requirements.


> - check for 
>   SOAP-with-attachment is duplicated in r1.1.1 and r1.1.2, 
> should only be in r1.1.2 ? 

MIKE: Agreed.  
1.1.1 is very broad in scope, whereas 1.1.2 focuses on the MIME 
headers...
something that we can scope and validate


> - any difference 
>   between r1.1.15 and r1.1.21 ? 


MIKE: Yes.  
r1.1.15 specifically addresses the acceptable namespace for SOAP 
extension 
elements within the SOAP header and body... whereas r1.1.21 addresses 
elements INSIDE of these extension elements that are not schema defined ( 
i.e. WILDCARD elements )


> We should also try to 
>   qualify these tests reqs using our "coverage" scale 
> (from C1: we'll certify at 100%, down to C4: not testable...) 


I'vet attached a list of these qualifications against level 
1 and level 3 requirements, along with an additional 
Word document 
justifying my coverage-qualifications.  Next step is "abstract test 
cases".  I have begun this process,
but need clarification/correction on 
the coverage-qualifications before I can finalize these test cases. 


> I'm busy until 
>   Thursday, so I will not review this in more details before Thu pm. 
>   
>
> Cheers, 
>
> Jacques 
>   
>
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: 
>   Michael Kass [mailto:michael.kass@nist.gov] 
>   
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 12:24 PM 
> To: Monica Martin 
> Cc: matthew MacKenzie; 
>   jacques Durand 
> Subject: Re: Kass 6/10/2002: Level 2 
>   Draft Requirements 
>
>
> Monica, 
>   
>
>     I am refining my level 1 requirements 
>   names, based upon your 
> recommendations for a more 
>   succinct label. I have also added some 
> "keywords" into 
>   the label ( I would call them "action" words.. such as 
> "Process", Provide", "Generate" and "Report" ).  I found that 
>   these words 
> made it much clearer as to whether an 
>   ebXML service was being tested for 
> processing, 
>   generation or error handling in regard to a particular test 
> requirement. 
>
>    I am attaching a 
>   copy of the HTML document with the revised wording. 
>
>    Comments? 
>
> Mike 
ÿþ<














































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































ÿþ<

Attachment: coverage-qualifiers.doc
Description: MS-Word document