Title: RE: [ebxml-iic-conform] 7/9/2002: Comments on Level 1 Conformance Requirements
Monica:
could you keep track of this "audit list"?
(including items you pointed out in your own comments)
We would submit it to MS TC with our test reqs.
Regrads,
Jacques
-----Original Message-----
From: Monica Martin [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 9:22 AM
To: Michael Kass; ;
Subject: [ebxml-iic-conform] 7/9/2002: Comments on Level 1 Conformance
Requirements
On, these items r1.2.11 and r1.4.16 should be on a audit list to be
discussed with TC.
Thanks, all.
Monica
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kass
Sent: Tue 7/9/2002 9:43 AM
To: ;
Cc:
Subject: Re: [ebxml-iic-conform] Comments on Leve 1 Conformance
Requirements
Michael,
Thanks for your comments. I've incorporated changes where
necessary.
Mike
At 06:51 PM 7/5/2002 -0700, Michael Wang wrote:
>I finally got around reading the Leve 1 Conformance
Requirements.
>I have some comments on it.
>
>r1.1.20
>The Assertion mentions of SOAP Header contains one ebXML
>MessageHeader element. What happens when there are more than
>one MessageHeader element present? Should this be checked?
>Most schema validators will not pick this up as it is valid.
>If we say to check this then all the top level extension
>elements have the same issue.
[MIKE K] - This test specifically will test for multiple
MessageHeader
elements is present,
and will fail the candidate MSH if more than one is found. You
are right
that most schema
validators won't pick this up. We will have to use XPath tests
to check
for such a case.
>r1.2.11
>The Assertion mentions 'NotRecognised'. I believe this should
>be 'ValueNotRecognized'.
[MIKE K] :You are right. Spec is incorrect in section 3.1.5. I
fixed the
test requirement to 'ValueNotRecognized'
>r1.2.18, r1.2.19, r1.2.20
>These discusses aspects related to Reliable Messaging. If we
>have decided to put Reliable Messaging in level 2 then these
>should be resident in level 2 Requirements right?
[MIKE K] - All 3 now moved to level 2
>r1.4.13
>It is not clear to me what's the requirment here. The Name
>of this item mentions "Short Description" but the assertion
>mentions of "Long Description".
[MKE K] : Changed to "Long Description" for both
>r1.4.16
>The mention of ErrorURI is not quite right. From the Messaging
>Spec it mentions of ErrorURI of CPPA. However, I cannot find
>ErrorURI in any CPPA specs. I believe the Messaging Spec is
>trying to say to use the URI defined for the "error" Endpoint
>(or "allPurpose" Endpoint if "error" Endpoint is not defined).
>We should probabaly clarify it here.
[MIKE K] : You're right. This needs clarification. Will leave
as is for now
>-mw
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the
subscription
>manager: < http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: < http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
