[ebxml-iic] COnformance Clause to vote by Tue Nov 27th

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

Title: COnformance Clause to vote by Tue Nov 27th

All:

Here is an updated version of the MS conformance clauses
(mostly to accommodate latest MS version 1.09)

As we want the MS TC to consider including the clause for the
January release of the spec to OASIS, we need to quickly decide
on which clause option (among the three attached) the IIC will
submit/recommend to MS TC.

So we would like to get a vote from each of you no later than Tuesday, Nov 27th!!
Please send me your preferred CC option id (1, 2 or 3), from the most preferred
to the least, by Nov 27.
If there is an option you do not consider acceptable, just do not list it.
(e.g. a vote: "2,3,1" means CC option 2 is most preferred, 1 is least preferred but OK)

It is still OK to send comments, but we do not guarantee taking them into account
late at this stage.

A few words on our approach to the CC:

- The way features have been grouped into levels in these CC options, is
based on usage consideration (after investigation), but also impementation/validation aspects.
That is why CC levels do not attempt to match functionally all possible usage profiles
or agreements (e.g. all combinations of the MS spec modules).
The idea is that the more "conformance levels" (or profiles), the more MSH implementation
classes will need be considered.  A Level is actually as much meaningful
for the deployment process of an MSH (implementation, testing, certification, availability)
as for the functionality it allows. By defining very few levels, we simplify
the testing process, and also reduce certification options. Within a level, users have the
freedom to use any function that has been specified (or not, if it is optional).

- conformance does not guarantee interoperability, but each conformance level will point at
its own interoperability caveats. However, conformance levels clear the first hurdles
to interoperability, as they define what areas of CPAs are supported between parties.
Having two MSH conforming at same level only means that they can support
the same scope of CPP/CPA modes, when communicating.

Regards,

Jacques Durand
Fujitsu Software
IIC, conformance clause WG

<<CC_definitions.doc>> <<CC_option_1.doc>> <<CC_option_2.doc>> <<CC_option_3.doc>>

CC_definitions.doc

CC_option_1.doc

CC_option_2.doc

CC_option_3.doc