I did not work on the AS4 spec yet, as it's still stuck in the OASIS TC Admin queue.
Here is a summary on issues to address, from lessons learned during the Interop and in prototype implementations.
The last two (10) and (11) were not on the list I presented verbally on last week's call.
1- Compression property with value true instead of empty string for XML schema compliance. 2- MIME type value in property for a compressed attachment required instead of recommended. 3- Add note that a compressed payload must be in a separate MIME part and not in the SOAP Body because compressed data is binary and base64 encoding it would increase the message size. 4- In AS4 5.1.8.(a) and 5.1.8.(b), clarify use of receipts with simple SOAP messages, where the SOAP envelope is not in a part with a content identifier, and has no MIME content ID, so here there can be no part identifier.
5- In AS4 5.1.8.(a) and 5.1.8.(b), note that it is impossible to generate a valid ebBP reception awareness receipt for simple SOAP messages that have no payload parts. 6- In AS4 5.1.8.(a) and 5.1.8.(b), decide on ebbp:MessagePartIdentifier format for a payload part in SOAP body that is implicitly identified by absence of an href
attribute as described in ebMS3Core section 5.2.2.13. 7- Clarify that an identifier of a payload in the SOAP Body is a stored as an attribute value on the SOAP Body element, not on the contained document root (AS4 interop). 8- Discuss the format of the identifier (xml:id or wsu:Id). 9- Bad references to SOAP 1.1 instead of 1.2.
10- Guidelines on values for mpc (message partition channel) attributes. Pullrequests do not have ebMS metadata, so a partner that sends documents to multiple partners using Pull mode must assign them to different channels, unless we want to require support for the selective pulling feature of Part 2 in ebMS.
11- Support for Two Way MEPs. This is not needed for EDIINT, but in essence allowing an MSH to set the value for RefToMessageId adds minimal complexity to an implementation. It
allows A S4 to be used also for SOA-style,
request/response interactions.
Pim
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Jacques Durand Sent: 31 October 2011 19:38
To:
Subject: [ebxml-msg] about testing and GITB
In case we have a meeting scheduled this Wednesday:
I’d like to put on the agenda 2 topics:
1.
Information about the GITB (Global eBusiness Interoperability Test Bed initiative ) project at:
http://www.ebusiness-testbed.eu/publicaties/4752
, that I participated in (a report about Phase 2 / architecture & principles is in review
at:
http://www.cen.eu/cen/Sectors/Sectors/ISSS/Workshops/Pages/Testbed.aspx
.)
2.
Some brainstorming about what it would take to develop an AS4 conformance test suite, how it could be designed, and possible relationship with the GITB and its next phase (implementation, PoC).
Thanks,
Jacques
