Next in thread →
Next in month →
RE: [ebxml-msg] Have you implemented Version 2.0 ?
Title: RE: [ebxml-msg] Have you implemented Version 2.0 ?
David,
I supported the testing process because it was the right thing to do, but
I cannot agree with you that we can or should attached any idea of
conformance/compliance to the process. The process lacks discipline that
would be required for such a validation. I agree that you attempted to
ensure conformance to the specification. The issue is not the testing
steps. It is the execution. True conformance testing requires that the
tests be completed by an independent third party--that was not done. We
did not ship our product to your lab for testing, we did it behind the closed
doors of our institution, just as all the participants did. What did we do
during the course of the testing to our product? Who really knows?
CEAL and other accredited testing facilities use a more sterile process that
ensures that the certification is for the product they have in hand, not
something that is promised or attested to by the one who built
it. I insist there is a
difference.
Your argument about cost might seem to be
compelling, but it is a dangerous thing to ascribe test validity to
cost. But, at the same time, I will say that comparative compliance
testing is available at a similar cost. We are paying less than the DGI
cost for FIPS 140 compliance testing through one of the three certified labs in
North America. They use rigorous processes within their NIST certified spaces to ensure that our
products do exactly what we say they do, and exactly what the standards
require.
I
state again, DGI had the right idea. I believe that the testing accomplished positive things. Most
important, it provided some traction for ebXML when there was a perception that
momentum was being lost--it brought ebXML transport directly into the view of
the community. Then, the testing demonstrated that different
implementation of the same specification were interoperable. We have
lamented the specification's immature state, but the truth is vendors were able
to use it to build real product. I submit that the various vendors used
bright people to build their products, but the opportunity for misinterpretation
and error was huge. I do not recall any serious discrepancies during the
dry run phase. This would seem to say the the specification can be used by
ebXML adopters. Last, the testing revealed a few discrepancies in the
specification. There were some issues that were reflected back to the
OASIS TC for resolution. The testing helped build more quality into the V
2.0 specification. With that on the table, I still firmly hold to the idea
that we need a different model for compliance testing and I am looking to the
IIC TC for direction in that area.
Ralph
Berwanger
Ambassador to Standards
bTrade,Inc
-----Original Message-----
From: David Fischer
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 9:49
AM
To: Ralph Berwanger;
Cc:
Bill Morgan
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Have you implemented Version
2.0 ?
Ralph, thanks for the kind remarks. You are correct that our main
objective was Interoperability rather than Conformance, but this does not mean
we ignore conformance. While it is probably not possible to assure 100%
conformance to any specification, I would venture the opinion that the DGI
method actually gives greater assurance of conformance than any other.
We certainly scrutinize the output of every participant's code to make sure
there is no deviation from the specification. Since we had four
participants this round, this meant that there were at least four sets of eyes
checking each company's submission for any such deviation. The more eyes
the better.
The only other method I know of where conformance may be tested is some
form of Reference Implementation. This was the method used for years,
primarily because it was not feasible to do the kind of rigorous, full-matrix
testing now possible on the Internet. After all, a Reference
Implementation is still an Implementation and subject to flaws. Even
though, in the past, this was the accepted way to assure conformance (because
there was nothing better), this method does not always to produce
satisfactory results. Even if product A works with Ref and product B
works with Ref, there is no assurance that A works with B -- and it is
relatively sure they don't. DGI estimates that you will get 85-90%
Interoperability with this method, which is a good start but not nearly enough
for B2B.
In terms of cost, Reference Implementations for this type of
application typically cost in the millions, plus maintenance. DGI is
providing a comparable (superior) method for less than a tenth of
that cost.
You are correct, we do not focus on Compliance, but that is included in
our end result. Please ask anyone in the test whether we are out of
compliance with any part of the spec? Because of time and resource
constraints (and a wandering specification), we were forced to test a subset
of the total spec in this round, but that will be remedied in the
future.
Regards,
David Fischer
Drummond Group.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Berwanger
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 2:53
PM
To:
Cc: Bill
Morgan
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Have you implemented Version 2.0
?
Lisa,
Before we start beating on Drummond Group we
should be careful to understand what they were offering. They were not certifying that vendor products
were 'compliant' with the specification. They were offering a service
to ensure interoperability between products of various vendors. This may seem like
hair-splitting (and for those who know me you understand how difficult that
is), but it is the simple truth. Vendors were not forced to engage in
the testing, they voluntarily participated. There was NO other venue
and at least this method provided a somewhat impartial third-party
validation of facts assumed by the
vendors.
I agree that it would be improper to take
intellectual property 'donated' by various organizations and sell it for
gain. Like you and the rest of those on the listserv, we spend
significant resources assisting with standards work. It is intended to
produce an open consensus-based standard, not to advance the interest of any
individual company. I think we are sharing the same soap box.
However, in fairness to the Drummond Group, that is not what has
happened. They took the specification and produced a test plan which
allowed the participants in the test to exchange messages and to
systematically exercise their solutions to ensure that they worked with
similiar products from other vendors. In the end, those that
participated can affirm that their products can interoperate. They
might even say that their products are compliant, but not based on the
results of the test. That was not the purpose of the test. For
the record, I do not totally agree with the statements that David
has made below, but I cannot fault Drummond Group for their
actions.
Regarding compliance testing, a very different
process is needed. I exchanged messages with Prakash yesterday on this
topic. I am hoping that the OASIS IIC TC can move this forward.
I am prepared to assist anyway necessary to help this work progress. I think we may need to bring
additional resources to the table to assist the IIC. Additionally, there other efforts, like the
B2B Testbed, being proposed by OAG and NIST that can provide additional
support to this area.
Ralph Berwanger
Ambassador to
Standards
bTrade,Inc
---------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: David Fischer
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002
2:05 PM
To: Seaburg, Lisa;
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Have you
implemented Version 2.0 ?
DGI has donated thousands of hours to ebXML over the
last two years. We are represented on five committees (two as
editors and one as v1.0 Chair) all non-reimbursed. The
interoperability test ran about four months with daily conference
calls and constant work on our part. We are providing this
service for very little more than cost recovery.
DGI is not taking advantage. Why is this
any different than someone implementing the spec and selling their
product, thus taking advantage of hundreds of hours of volunteer
work? No one actually volunteers for ebXML. Everyone has a
business reason to be here.
Regards,
David Fischer
Drummond Group.
-----Original Message-----
From: Seaburg, Lisa
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, March 01,
2002 1:04 PM
To:
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Have
you implemented Version 2.0 ?
Excuse me, but if this is true, the fee is
$35,000! Then the Drummond group is blatantly taking advantage of
the hundreds of volunteer hours put in by all the people involved.
I would like to get on my soapbox about this, but I won't today. I
will wait and see what other comments come from this email
thread.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From:
Duane Nickull [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 7:58 AM
To: Patrick Yee
Cc: Cliff Collins;
Subject: Re:
[ebxml-msg] Have you implemented Version 2.0 ?
The stated charge is a bit steep at $35,000 a
pop.
Duane
Patrick Yee wrote:
>
> Excuse me, I want to ask a side track
question.
> What is the charge to have the
messaging implementation to be tested by the
> Drummond Group? Thanks.
>
> Regards,
>
-Patrick
> --
>
Patrick Yee
> System Architect
> Center for E-Commerce Infrastructure Development
(CECID)
> Dept. of Computer Science and
Information Systems
> The University of Hong
Kong
> Tel: (852) 22415674
> Fax: (852) 25474611
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cliff Collins"
<>
> To:
<>;
<>
>
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 2:06 AM
>
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Have you implemented Version 2.0 ?
>
> > Sybase has
implemented Version 2.0 of the specification. Our
> > product is also part of the interoperability test
that
> > is being run by the Drummond
Group.
> >
>
> Cliff
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [mailto:]
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 9:47
AM
> > > To:
> > >
Subject: [ebxml-msg] Have you implemented Version 2.0 ?
> > >
> > >
> > > Implementers
> > >
> > > As I only
have a couple of outstanding non returned ballots the
> > > specification looks likely to pass I need
confirmation that the
> > >
specification has been implemented and does work as we have
specified
> for
>
> > the submission process. I would like this to be open so
please post an
> > > e-mail to the list
confirming you have successfully implemented
> > > Version 2.0
> > >
of the message services. This is NOT a product announcement only
that
> you
> >
> have implemented and tested it internally. If you do not want
this
> public
>
> > please e-mail me direct and only the number of implantation
will be made
> > > public.
> > >
> > >
Ian Jones
> > > Chair OASIS ebXML
Messaging Services TC
> > >
> > > Tel: +44 (0)29 2072 4063
> > > Fax: +44 (0)29 2072 4137
> > > Email:
> > >
> >
>
> > >
----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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>
--
CTO, XML Global
Technologies
****************************
Transformation - http://www.xmlglobal.com/prod/foundation/
ebXML Central - http://www.xmlglobal.com/prod/central/
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the
subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
Next in thread →
Next in month →