[ebxml-iic] minutes, next meeting Feb 24.

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

Title: minutes, next meeting Feb 24.

All:

Attached, the minutes of Monday's meeting.

Next meeting Monday Feb 24th, where voting will take place.
Agenda and call info will be sent next week.
Can someone volunteer for hosting?

I will also update our membership to remove those who
cannot commit to be present for the on-coming voting period, based on latest
attendence (taking into account exceptional requests e.g. vacation, etc.).
(will send them a notice).
They are welcome to attend, but the only difference is they can't vote.
Again we need make sure that 2/3 of our total membership at least will
vote...

The four tech docs candidates for committee specifications (see our site, through
some are already out-of-date due to current editing) are:
- ebXML Test Framework design and specification (draft, V0.93)
- MS Basic Interoperability Test Suite specification (draft V0.8)
- MS Deployment Guide Template draft (work in progress)
- Example of Instance of MS Deployment Guide Template (draft in progress):
The EAN-UCC ebMS Deployment Guidelines"

regards,

Jacques
<<IIC_Feb_10_03_minutes.txt>>

Minutes of IIC February 10, 2003
------------------------------
 
Call info:
---------

Host: Fujitsu
Time: February 10 Monday, 10am PT
Toll free: 1-877-801-2058
Intl Number:1-712-257-6652
Passcode: 309951

Minute taker: Jacques Durand


Present 
--------

Mike Kass (NIST)
Jaques Durand (Fujitsu)
Monica Martin (Sun)
Aaron Gomez (DGI)
Himagiri Mukkamala, (Sybase)
Steve Yung (Sun)
Matthew MacKenzie, (XMLG)

(Pete Wenzel , Jeff Turpin, Hatem El-Sebaaly  excused)

Agenda: 
------- 

1. Review / Comments on Deployment Template (Pete Wenzel) and 
the EAN instance (Thomas Bikeev) . 
- latest update, 
as well as the EAN guideline (an instance of the template).  

2. Status and review of the MS Basic Interoperability test suite, 
proposed updates (V0.8, editor: Steve Yung). 
Pending:
- CPA: do we need to distinguish, in some cases, between party A and party B?
Still TBD (e.g. in  test cases, we only test signature, acks, from one side
typically. Other side will be tested when test suite is run from the other party.)
 Idea is that
- do we agree to remove the testcase 1.5 (signed message with *embedded* key info) 
in this "basic" interop suite? 
- should we do payload verification on test driver side, or on the remote side.
- also do we agree with the way we relate to 3rd party interop testing efforts 
(section 1.2.3)

3. TestFramework, and implementation talks: 
- Mike Kass (if he is back), will present TestFramework (V0.93), remaining
sensitive points. 
- Matt proposed a cooperation on development, possibly targeting open source status
e.g. FreebXML).

4. Next f-2-f: proposal to meet in San Diego, some time between March 10-14,
same location as UN/CEFACT meeting (and ebMS TC meeting?).


Minutes:
--------

1. MS Deployment templates (Pete, Thomas) 

- Pete will provide next week a final update of the doc.
- Thomas will check if some undefined values should be "pending" instead.
(Pete, should we distinguish possible values of items in template: 
. "not applicable" (means not relevant to this kind of deployment.)
. "no recommendation"(means anything goes) 
. "pending" (means the deployment team is still in process of deciding this.) 


2. Status of MS Interop spec: (Steve, Jacques)

- CPA datasets: Aaron believes that it is better to have the same CPA settings 
for each party. Thats how DGI did. Steve agrees.
Steve will update CPA data sets: will probably be expressed using a subset of
CPA format (e.g. MessagingInfo elements, for each party.)
- Steve advises to remove test case 1.5 which is not mainstream for 
a basic interop suite, given consensus on this.
- Eric / Jacques provided additional feedback. We should consider
parametrization of the suite. Some parameters could be (1) protocol, (2) version.
Then we can express more formal conditions on the test cases
(e.g. synchronous test cases only apply if $transport=HTTP)
- Steve advises to keep the payload checking at test driver side, after full loop.
(so no change)
- Section 1.2.3 needs review and agreement from team.
- test scripts: should be verified.


3. Test Framework spec (Mike) 

- what is still missing: 
	o a base CPA. In future, a way to conveniently specify "derived" CPAs from base, 
will be added. but a base CPA may be needed to assume  initial coordination of testbed,
prior to executing test suites.
	o some examples.
- Driver/non-driver modes need clarification. jacques will propose an update.
- Serm K. (NIST, testbed team) has detailed comments on TestFramework, will share
with Jacques at OAG meeting Feb 11-12.
- 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 need examples. Jacques to propose some test cases taken from 
MS test suites.
- Monica: will update the terminology section.
- The schemas for the payload of "test service" messages (e.g. status notification, etc.)
need be added.
- Implementation discussions: we will follow-up on a joint effort NIST + 
others, possibly under open source (e.g. freebXML).
- TestFramework should be used next for Registry test suites, that would validate
its general purpose (beyond ebMS).


4. Next f-2-f , others

- registration for joint OASIS meeting (ebMS , CPPA, IIC TCs) in San Diego,
with UN/CEFACT (March 12-13) Jacques will send out agenda, hotel info.
- OAG/NIST testbed team meets Feb 11-15 in San Jose, Monica & Jacques
made a presentation on how IIC test framework fits in testbed architecture
and busienss case.
- Next conf call: Feb 24th.10am PT (voting expected).