Overall, I think this draft is good and look forward to
seeing the rest of the profiles detailed.
I do
have a question on the section
Lines
341-347 Configurator
What
is meant by "change the collaboration agreement for the conversation related to
a test case or a set of test cases"
is the
idea to switch out CPAID on an "Initiator" action for a test case or set of test
cases or is the idea to actually change the contents of a CPA document itself
refered to by a CPAID ?
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Yung
[mailto:]
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 11:22
PM
To: Jacques Durand
Cc: '';
'';
''
Subject: Re:
[ebxml-iic-interop] MS interop draft and some test cases /
profile
Hi All,
Sorry this took so long. I have taken a first crack at the various
profiles for Interop test, please review (for the purposes of the draft, I
have indicated where it matches the Drummond test, these comments will be
removed in the final draft, but a statement will be place into the document to
acknowledge the contributions that the Drummond Group have made).
I will continue to work on this document this week and hope to have another
draft out before the end of the week.
Cheers,
Steve
--
Steve Yung,
Market
Development Manager
Web Services/XML Development
Sun Microsystems
Phone: +1-650-786-8469
Fax: +1-650-786-3674
Jacques Durand wrote:
Steve, Prakash:
Here is an updated draft of MS Interop
test Suite doc.
Note that I
have not merged yet all material from the earlier draft of
Prakash.
(I leave it to you
guys to do that).
things to look at in
particular:
1- We need to define some Interoperability
Profiles (I only defined one very basic, to review/extend).
(the "interop profiles" we discussed this
morning on the call.)
I
have assumed so far a very basic interoperability profile (see Section 4,
"IP 1"),
that mostly checks
the ability to exchange various types of messages.
(Now, should some security, e.g. DSig, etc. be
added? maybe.)
Some
possible approaches when defining profiles:
- only one transport is adressed in a profile
(HTTP, SMTP, HTTPS),
(so it
could be we replicate our HTTP profile suite for SMTP?)
- as focus is on interop, we assume
conformance tests have been done before.
(but some conformance tests may have an interop
aspect:
e.g. proper Ack
generation is a conformance test supposed to be done before,
but ability to receive an Ack from
another MSH and process it correctly is an interop issue.)
- base profile(s) should only require
core features in MSH.
- its
OK for a profile A test suite to include/refer to another profile B test
suite (if A extend B)
(e.g.
secure profile extend base profile?)
- we could have a "standard" profile, and an
"enterprise" one that tests advanced reqs, like passing large payloads,
etc.
2- Look at the test Case material (section
4)
So far I have described
4 Test Cases for profile IP1 (a small subset of Steve's test
list)
Each Test Case is
complete with test steps and message material.
Also See if the Test Service actions are clear
enough and sufficient.
Then
if its OK you can use these as examples to build other test
cases.
3- Could you review that draft, possibly
do some update ( refine / add profile definitions, some test
cases,
possibly do more
merging with Prakash earlier draft ) by end of this week?
Then I'll add whatever latest version to
our OASIS site as a work in progress.
Regards,
Jacques
<<ebXML_MS_Interoperability_TestSuite.doc>>
