----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 4:04
PM
Subject: [ebxml-iic] comments on
TestFmwk, response.
FYI, comments from Serm (NIST), on some editorial
ambiguities.
I have tried to adress these
in the following attached update of Test Framework ("rev1", see the diff
in red), please review.
NOTE: the approved version of Test Framework
(updated here) has not been posted yet, will be very soon.
(Monica: that is the version you asked for).
regards,
Jacques
<<TestFmk0.1-rev1.zip>>
---------------------------------------------
I couldn't post email to the iic list so I forward this
comment to you.
thank you,
serm
----- Original Message -----
From: Boonserm
(Serm) Kulvatunyou <mailto:serm@nist.gov>
To:
ebxml-iic@lists.oasis-open.org
<mailto:ebxml-iic@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Friday,
March 21, 2003 6:22 PM
Subject:
possible confusion in the test framework
In
section 3.2.4.2 - Test Service Actions, the term 'requestor' and 'requestor
Test Service' has been used in several places (look in the response
destination) which I am sure if applies in all cases. To my understanding it
should be 'response URL'.
<Jacques> agree "requestor" is
ambiguous (a remnant of some previous sections we removed on
"requestor/responder"). Response messages are always sent to response URL, as
defined in 3.2.3., so we should make that more explicit.
I think the simplest reason is the requestor could
be either Test Driver or Test Service. If the requester is Test Driver and it
is conformance testing, then response destination is Test Driver. If the
requester is Test Driver and it is interop testing, then response destination
is another Test Service. So response URL should always be used.
On line 703-704, "The action responds with a
notification message to the requestor ....". This confused me. First,
"Notification" was used for reporting (to the test driver). Then it has the
word 'requestor'. Should the sentence be "The action responds to the
ResponseURL about ...."?
<Jacques> Right. Bad
wording. I think we should ban "requestor" from all this section, as this is
also too restrictive on the possible test harness configurations.
Or I am missing something :).
Thank
you,
-
serm