Next call, Monday Sept 29, 11am PT

IIC Conference Call Joint Minutes: 
Monday, September 15, 2003
Monday, September 22, 2003
 
Attendance:

Sept 15:
Monica Martin (Sun)
Tim Sakach (DrakeCertivo)
Mike Kass (NIST)
Jacques Durand (Fujitsu)
Pete Wenzel (SeeBeyond)
Serm Kulvatunyou (NIST)

Sept 22:
Mike Kass (NIST)
Jacques Durand (Fujitsu)
Jeff Eck (GXS)

excused: 

Steve Yung (Sun)


Minutes taker: Jacques Durand

Time: Monday September 15, 11am PT
Host: Fujitsu 
Toll Free - : 1-800-251-6413 
Toll - : 1-913-905-1400 
Participant code: 598136 

Agenda: 

1. Status of MS conformance test suite spec. (Mike Kass editor) 
- Status of latest modifications, current draft of MS conf test suite. 
(abstract vs. executable test cases, test req coverage)
- can we freeze for a short review period before voting?

2. Test Framework: 
- requirements for new features? (Tim S.)
- Test Framework update candidates and maintenance release. 

3. Next ebXML conformance testing: 
- BPSS test requirements (Serm K., Mike K.) 
- RegRep test req works (Mike) 

4. External and implementation initiatives:
- Drake Certivo conformance tests status. 
- Global interop testing (how to promote BIP?)
- eBES demo at XML 2003, 7-12 December (Monica)
- new JC: compatibility matrix for versions of various ebXML components.


-----

1. Status of MS conformance test suite spec. (Mike Kass editor) 

- Mike agrees with most of feedback from the team, will update draft.
- Mike generated V0.94. Jacques gave comments on it.
- Next draft should be final.
- Remaining issues:
- The material in abstract test suite is not explained enough, in particular
the "abstract test case" column of the table. The XPath notation should be mentioned.
The parameter notation ($) should be explained without any reference to the Test Framework.
Some corelation expressions with parameters ($MessageId) should be removed.
- Parameters $CPAId, $RefToMessageId, $ConvID should be explained without reference to
TestFramework. Other $parameters need be considered for removal too.
- The abstract test suite should be self-explanatory without any
need to reference the Test Framework 1.0 (which is just one option to implement it).
- Sections 3.4 and some material in 3.5 are dependent on TestFramework 1.0 and 
actually related to the "executable" test suite. The material related to Test Framework 1.0
should be set apart in a non-normative section, or move out into the "executable test suite" 
document, so as to  not confuse readers.
- Test case #9: ($SOAPencoding ) remove ref to Test Driver...

2. Test Framework

- the "wish list" is getting big. More test support for application level needed.
E.g. Serm will need this for OAG BODs conformance testing.
- Tim: has comments on T.Fmk , will share with us. Also expects T.Fmk to support
message payloads. "Mutation" capability of payloads is useful.
- Serm: Korea has comments too.
- should we consider schema validation as one of the test operations?
- RefToMessageId , and "user variables" assignment needs support.
- Shoould be mode decoupled from ebXML: ebXML-specific schemas should be part of
configuration. Or, sepcific message templates. The persistent store should
not be so much MIME-dependent.
- Mike will draft and publish a quick requirements list.

3. Next ebXML conformance testing: 
- decision is to give highest priority to Test Framework upgrade in the short term,
just after the ebMS conf test suite is voted.
In parallel, we still support the "test req" phase of BPSS and RR, but will
only commit more fully to it once T.Fmk is upgraded.
- Serm will meet with Mike to discuss test reqs for BPSS.
- RegRep spec is marked up for coverage: start with a small set (to be published)
in LCM area.

4. External and implementation initiatives:
- Serm: Autotech demo will be replayed at GM in October.
- Tim: OAG conformance testing uses IIC Test Framework for BODs + collaborations.
- Monica mentioned there will be a significant eBES demo Dec 7 and that 
IIC should demonstrate Test Framework.