ebxml-msg message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: [ebxml-msg] RE: COnformance Clause
- From: Jacques Durand <JDurand@fs.fujitsu.com>
- To: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 14:11:10 -0800
Title: RE: [ebxml-msg] Re: Use cases for messageOrdering
Hi all:
In order to
prepare for the conformance agenda item (next conference call, next
week)
here are the two candidate conformance clauses for MS 1.1 that are most favored by the
IIC group (Options 2 and
3),
for your review. (Option 1 was "all
or nothing" conformance.)
A
conformance clause should normally be included in the final spec
document.
IIC is
actually recommending Option 2 ( 9
members preferred it, while 4 members preferred option 3)
As voters
could also express - or not - second choices, we actually used a "weighted" vote
that reflects more precisely
the total
preference for each option (weight=3 for most preferred, 2 for second if any is
mentioned, 1 for third if any mentioned).
Result
is:
33 (thirty
three) for Option 2,
30 (thirty)
for Option 3,
8 (eight) for
Option 1.
I think this
vote - starting with the design of the clause candidates - indicates how
important
some features
like Reliability and Ordering have been perceived.
You'll note
that a special attention has been given to the interpretation of the keyword
"optional" , as
this used to
cause some trouble in past MS POC performances (see "definitions").
.
Note
that these clauses define
conformance levels (rather than profiles),
based on implementation
and usage investigation
(see the "rationale" section
at the end)
These levels do not attempt
to match functionally all possible profiles/agreements (CPP/A),
but should
rather be considered as properties of the MSH implementation itself -
establishing a few broad classes of implementations (yet coherent from usage
perspective),
so that the number of MSH
certification options can be limited.
(A same conformance
level roughly guarantees
the same CPA playing field for all communicating parties,
supporting several usage
profiles, the detailed definition of which being done/enforced at
CPP/A level.)
Regards,
Jacques Durand
Fujitsu Software
IIC,
conformance clause group
CC_option_2.doc
CC_option_3.doc
CC_definitions.doc
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC