----- 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