RE: FW: Update on remote testing

[Krishna Sankar <ksankar@cisco.com>]

Hi,

	Good stuff and congratulations to the team. (As I came in late, I could
only cheer from the sidelines ;-0)

	On 3> Payload Validation, are we using any of the values in the payload to
create the response document - like the PO ack and the PO acceptance ? If
so, at least those fields need to be validated for presence and may be for
valid values.

	cheers

-----Original Message-----
From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:Spatil@netfish.com]
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 6:01 PM
To: 'Nicholas Kassem'; Patil, Sanjay; Ebxml-Poc (E-mail)
Subject: RE: FW: Update on remote testing



Some of the issues we sorted out, knowledge of which might
be beneficial to other participants of the demo ...

1> For the demo, we are using 9 digit fake DUNS for PartyId.
   But DUNS is 13 digit and if you are using existing codeline
   and it recognizes only 13 digit DUNS, then padding is needed.

2> The "version" attribute of TPAInfo.Action element is specified
   as "Version" in the DTD and "version" in the examples of
   POC demo doc. Why don't we stick to DTD and use "Version".

3> Payload validation. Although we specified this as optional
   in the demo doc, some of us might be performing business level
   validation on top of structural validation
   ex. GlobalLocationIdentifier in the PurchaseOrderRequest
   should match with the actual value associated with the
   respective DUNS, etc.
   I suggest we turn off the business level validation. Comments please.

4> HTTP 1.0 Vs. 1.1 : I do not yet have a concrete proof, but I
   suspect use of different HTTP versions at the two endpoints is
   causing a mysterious problem of messages having only HTTP
   headers and no content. These messages are also having multiple
   values for the Content-Length.
   Can we decide upon HTTP 1.1??

thanks,
Sanjay Patil
Netfish Technologies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Work Phone: 408 350 9619
http://www.netfish.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Kassem [mailto:Nick.Kassem@eng.sun.com]
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 4:12 PM
To: Patil, Sanjay; Ebxml-Poc (E-mail)
Subject: Re: FW: Update on remote testing


Good news. Thanks for the update. Nick.

At 03:34 PM 8/4/2000 -0700, Patil, Sanjay wrote:

>Vitria has just joined in the remote interoperability.
>With WebMethods, I guess we have good progress now
>after sorting out many small issues at either ends.
>
>thanks,
>Sanjay Patil
>Netfish Technologies
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>------------------------------
>Work Phone: 408 350 9619
>http://www.netfish.com
>
> >  -----Original Message-----
> > From:         Patil, Sanjay
> > Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 11:55 AM
> > To:   Ebxml-Poc (E-mail)
> > Subject:      Update on remote testing
> >
> >
> >
> > Nick,
> >
> > As you suggested, I will be updating the POC with remote testing
> > participants ...
> >
> > Netfish test server is acting as a responder. As of now (12 PM PST), the
> > requester is
> > WebMethods. Bala from WebMethods and myself are working on getting a
> > smooth roundtrip.
> >
> > Hoping to see other participants jump in soon.
> >
> > thanks,
> > Sanjay Patil
> > Netfish Technologies
> >
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------------------------------
> > Work Phone: 408 350 9619
> > http://www.netfish.com
> >