Re: [ebxml-iic] some late feedback...(on MS conf)

["Michael Kass" <michael.kass@nist.gov>]

Title: some late feedback...(on MS conf)

Jacques,

 

 

   I sent V0.9 of the ebXML Conformance Test Suite Specification with fixes based upon this email and others in a previous message.  Below are

my comments to your comments.

 

Thanks,

Mike

----- Original Message -----

From: Jacques Durand

To: 'ebxml-iic@lists.oasis-open.org'

Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 1:59 PM

Subject: [ebxml-iic] some late feedback...(on MS conf)

Mike and all:

Quick feedback on MS conf spec (will send more later):

1. need more names in "reviewers" section

[MIKE] - I've added names to the editors and contributors section at the beginning of the document. Please let me know if I left anyone out.

2. Profiles section need more exposure (a full section, not header 3), and we'll need a
conforming profile document pointing to the right reqs. We may need to re-discuss a bit the
profile defs (ping/pong/status svc place, syncReply options)

[MIKE] - Added the 3 profiles (Core, Reliable Messaging and Additional Features).  Note that in the Testing Profiles, 

 I am only referencing the "main" <TestRequirement> ID's not their many <FunctionalRequirement> IDs. 

A Test Driver should be able to read the <TestRequirement> ID and then execute all Test Cases that point to the child

<FunctionalRequirement> elements via ID reference.  I did not see the need to explicitly list all Profile Test Requirement IDs.  I can

change this if the IIC thinks this will help.  But it looks more like "spec bloat" than is necessary.

3. Test cases for multi-hop still use the "concrete" syntax (GetMessage...)

[MIKE] - Fixed that.

4. The wording of some test reqs is not concrete enough, in terms of testable assertion
(see reqs 6, 7: "the MSH accepts the message", we need to say something more concrete,
like: passes to application without generating an error.)

[MIKE] - I went through the assertions and provided more specific descriptions for the over-simplified ones

5. In Test Cases: would correlation based on Conv ID be sufficient, for associating req-resp?
(instead of MesgID / RefToMesgID)
(not sure we can always assume the Test Driver can know, as an app, the MesgID that are generated by its MSH)

[MIKE] - No. We can only be assured what message we are referring to by using RefToMessageId returned by the MSH.  Virtually all Test Step <GetMessage><Filter>s correlate based upon the MessageId of the previously sent message by the Test Driver

Regards,

Jacques