[ebxml-iic] minutes and more

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

Title: minutes and more

All:

Minutes of last Monday meeting attached.

Next meeting will be Monday Jan 20th - do we have a volunteer to host it?
We will certainly expect to vote for putting some (hopefully all?) spec documents in formal TC review.

A reminder that in order to better channel the mail traffic, we are making use of
our sublists (iic-framework, iic-interop, iic-conform) for sending commented spec works.
(probably only the deployment template team does not have one...)

Regards,

Jacques
<<IIC_Jan_06_03_minutes.txt>>

Minutes of IIC January 6, 2003
------------------------------
 
Call info:
---------

Host: GXS (Jeff Eck) 
Time: Monday Jan 6th at 10:00AM PT (1:00PM ET) 
Dial 1-877-434-7266 or 1-301-340-5190 
Meeting ID# 32965 (ebXML) 

Minute taker: Jacques Durand


Present 
--------

Jeff Eck (GXS)
Michael Kass (NIST)
Jaques Durand (Fujitsu)
Monica Martin (DrakeCertivo)
Eric VanLydegraf (Kinzan)
Jeff Turpin (Cyclone Commerce)
Thomas Bikeev, EAN Intl
Pete Wenzel (SeeBeyond) 

(Steve Yung excused)

Agenda:
-------

1. MS Interop spec: status of current draft:(Steve Yung) 
- Steve edited draft V0.6, posted on our site. Still needs the scripting for test cases. 
  
2. Test Framework spec (Mike) 
- Comments from reviewers need be integrated. 

3. MS Deployment templates (Pete, Thomas) 
- template status: is it ready for formal review? 
- current state of UCC-EAN template instance will help decide of this. 

4. Overall planning for review / spec vote: 
- when can we finalize (1), (2) and (3) above, and start formal review cycle. 
- MS conformance test suite should be next. 

5. External initiatives (Monica). Although we focus now on deliverables, 
need to stay informed and prepared about: 
- JMT actions, 
- OAG testbed initiative. 
- eBES, 
- other? 


Minutes:
--------

1. Status of MS Interop spec: 
- Main missing elements to be added to main doc: 
scripting of the 10 test cases, and CPA content specification.
- Mike scripted the test cases: need review.
- for CPA, just "abstract" content (like in 3.2.1) is enough, yet we need
more than a single CPA (the "basic" one - should identify other CPAs with
security / sync relply (mshSignalsOnly?)
- message material: are the small payloads in the doc, the ones to be used?
We may need to give a URL to a test payload(s) (real documents, e.g. RosettaNet, OAG)
- on editorial side: still some work. E.g. need to remove/shorten sections
on the description of Test Service, that are now redundant with TestFramework doc.
- also, the description of message material needs to be in sync with the latest
scripting material from Mike: we don't have "message header" templates anymore,
or "MIME envelope" templates: this content is directly specified in test case
scripts. However, we may keep the examples in Section 3.3 to illustrate what
headers / envelopes should be produced from a correct interpretation of the 
test case scripts.
- check last test cases for Acks (failures cases cannot all be automatically 
detected by test framework).

2. Test Framework spec (Mike) 
- Mike has worked on editorial improvements: integrated comments
from Eric, Jacques - not yet all from Monica. 
- wording need be more neutral w/r to "conformance" and "interop"
tests (not biased to any of these.) Same for verification/validation.
- The Notion of "message store", is refined (better definition). 
Message store is specified at a level detailed enough so that the behavior 
of getMessage() op can be precisely described 
(i.e. getMessage is in fact a message filter operating on the
set of received messages, and this set is to be precisely defined).
Same for putMessage() (does it clean the store?)
- CPA: even if the CPA is not supposed to be processed / understood by
the Framework, it is part of the test case "configuration" (e.g. in the
initial phase of testing, will be used to configure ebXML impl, like being
installed on MSH.) So some CPA content needs be described in test cases.
Mike is in favor of having the framework requiring (or recommending) this 
CPA content to follow a particular schema(s). (Could be a subset of CPA schema,
e.g. mini-CPA for MSH?)
- Consensus is that adding examples would make the spec more readable. Jacques will
identify possible examples (from one of our two test suites).

3. MS Deployment templates (Pete, Thomas) 
- template status: latest is V0.3, posted on site. This version has proved
sufficient for EAN (Thomas B.), so the EAN-UCC "instance" seems to validate
the template edited by Pete.
- Pete will add introductory text, guidance to users. Also, when there are
few alternatives (or possible fill-in), they could be remembered to users
(so they would not need refer to the spec.) If there are recommended values,
they will be reminded to user.
- CPA references: whenever a template item is materialized by a CPA item,
need to mention so. Also specify the CPA item concerned (e.g. XPath)
- Question: should the UCC-EAN template instance be part of the template
spec doc? We agree that [a subset of ] it can be used for non-normative examples.
But the full EAN-UCC instance would also be published separately
(will be "normative" for EAN-UCC users), as a TC spec.
- The title of the EAN-UCC instance need be clearer (something like :
"EAN-UCC Instance of the Deployment Template, Version 0.1"
and the version# of the Template that has been used can be reminded inside. 

4. Overall planning for review / spec vote: 
- if editing and reviews of TestFramework spec and Interop specs
are going well by next meeting (Jan 20), these two specs are candidate 
to start review cycle (30days) that leads to vote as a TC spec. 
Note: TestFramework should be ultimately
voted/released before or at same time as Interop test suite. Yet, a good
part of the interop suite does not depend on it.
- it is critical that we finalize the Interop suite, as this responds to
the growing number of interop testing initiatives.
- COnformance test suite will be dealt with after we put the two specs above
in review cycle. (it is large, quite some editing to do.)
- Deployment Template and EAN-UCC instance seem in good shape to be voted
Jan 20, for review. (then end of Feb as TC specs).

5. External initiatives (Monica). 
- OAG/NIST are putting together an Action plan to promote the testbed
to business users (B2B testing, validation of content, interoperability, conformance
to standards.) A draft will be published next week, that outlines the project
(target audience, etc.). Monica follows this: in sync with the proposal she put 
together, where IIC can play a role here.
- ECOM is broadening its plan to be the Asian testing center for B2B.
- eBES has started on-line interoperability tests (TIE, Sun, Seeburger).
Monica has the minutes of last meetings. F-2-f planned end of Feb.