OASIS Interoperability/Conformance TC

Minutes of IIC December 16, 2002

Call info:

Time: Monday Dec 16th, 10am PT
Host: Fujitsu
Toll free number: 1-877-801-2058
International Number:1-712-257-6652
Participant passcode: 309951

Minute taker: Jacques Durand

Present

Mike Kass (NIST)
Jaques Durand (Fujitsu)
Monica Martin (DrakeCertivo)
Eric VanLydegraf (Kinzan)
Steve Yung (Sun)
Matt McKenzie (XMLG)

Agenda:

1. Our primary focus will be on the status of two drafts that are close to completion:
   • Test Framework specification, recently posted (V0.9) on our site. Content is complete, but a significant review work is needed.
   • MS Interoperability Suite, currently posted (V0.6) on our site. Will be complete also with test cases scripting. These specs are in final editing stage. We'll discuss if we should :
     1. vote them for TC review (means 30 day review period with no change, ending with vote for TC spec status)
     2. or do the bulk of review work before submitting for formal review cycle. I got feedback from a few who prefer (b). To discuss what that would ean for our schedule.
2. Deployment templates (Pete)
   • template status: is it ready for vote for TC review cycle, if not how far.
   • current state of EAN instance will be an indicator for this...(posted on our site).

Minutes:

1. Status of Draft Specs candidate for review (TestFramework, MS Interop)

• General opinion: we don't want to vote review period right now, because it means locking-up the specs for 30 days. Matt mentioned this is a common mistake (some TC rush to make deadlines and this will only lower the spec quality, which will take much longer to improve after). In addition, timing is bad for review: 2+ weeks off because of holidays, where no-one will review the specs anyway - that will not help quality. In particular, we want people from the testing industry to review this, e.g. Mike Dillon. So we will do thorough review within IIC, and only vote for review period when we feel it is ready - that should be in January.

TestFramework:

• The draft is content-complete, but still needs serious review. Mike mentioned AntEater java tool, that automates test case execution. Should we comply wity it? (this may affect the schemas we use for scripting)
• Matt mentioned this is mostly at implementation level:
  should not affect our test case description. We may consider later guidelines for implementors using this tool. Matt would rather advocate an API layer (in next version) that would delegate to AntEater. Consensus is to proceed with no changes.
• we have to make it clear also - as a functional requirement - that when coupled with Test Driver, Test Service "Initiator" operation needs be able to interpret such test driver operations as "PutMessage" and its parameters, so that it generates the right message request to MSH and on the wire. (not all envelope / header elts can be manipulated by "Initiator", as this is application level, so GetMessage also affected).
• Eric and Monica gave comemnts. Jacques will consolidate, and will hand over 0.91 to Mike who will get editing privileges.
• Comments on the doc should use line # but also sections #.

MS Interop suite:

• Steve completed editing of the Interop draft, except for test case scripting: Mike provided these, and they need review.
• Mike will provide the XML files for the test cases, to help review.
• Jacques mentioned some material still missing: payloads, schemas.
• Also, the CPA entities used seem too few: cpa_basic is not enough, e.g. syncReplyMode values need be switched between test cases. We need to add at least another CPA entity, i.e. describe it either separately, or as derived from an existing CPA (e.g "cpa_basic_sync" = cpa_basic + syncReplyMode =...).
• Consensus is that MS Interop suite should not be voted for review before the TestFramework, as it depends on it.

2. Deployment templates

• Template V0.3 posted on our site for review. Eric V.L. reviewed it and sent comments.
• Deployment Template team: was not on the call today.

3. Next:

Meeting on Monday, Jan 6th, 10am PT.