I'd have to go back and see what we have in the comments thus far. Will
try to do so by next call. This could be an issues list in Access
(similar to what CPPA has used).
What's the preference?
Thanks. Monica
-----Original Message-----
From: Jacques Durand
Sent: Tue 7/9/2002 10:32 AM
To: Monica Martin;
Cc:
Subject: 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>
