----- 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