OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-iic-msg message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


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


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
< <

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



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC