RE: Test Indicator Issue

[Dick Brooks <dick@8760.com>]

Chris,

I believe there is consensus that people will need a way to differentiate
test versus production message exchanges. It's not clear if the mechanism to
accomplish this will take the form of:
1. a test/production element in the ebXML header document
2. separate test/production URL's for the ebxmlhandler
3. test versus production PartyId's

I do believe there will be a ripple effect, regardless of which option is
chosen. The CPP's and TPA's will more than likely have to indicate
test/production information. Security requirements may be different based on
test/production configurations, including keys/certificates, access control
mechanisms. The Messaging Service service interface may have to provide a
means to indicate test/production for both inbound and outbound data.

I would be interested in hearing the viewpoints of BP, TP and Security folks
regarding the various options discussed.

Thanks,

Dick Brooks
Group 8760
110 12th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
dick@8760.com
205-250-8053
Fax: 205-250-8057
http://www.8760.com/

InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions

> -----Original Message-----
> From: christopher ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 11:52 AM
> To: Miller, Robert (GXS)
> Cc: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: Re: Test Indicator Issue
>
>
> I'm getting the sense that there seems to be some
> consensus on the need for a test indicator, but that
> the scope of its use/intent seems to be at issue.
>
> 	1 - MSH only (MUST NOT pass message to "application")
> 	2 - undefined (MSH MAY pass message to "application"
> 		along with test indicator and allow application
> 		to figure out what to do)
>
> Have I captured this sense correctly?
>
> Can we agree to have the vote on this aspect?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
> "Miller, Robert (GXS)" wrote:
> >
> > Dick,
> >
> > The tables which select the URL to which to deliver the
> payloads, whether
> > these tables be in the application code on in some middleware,
> would have to
> > differ between the production system and the test system.  And
> there might
> > be dozens of URL's each of which needs both a production and a
> development
> > entry.  And the tables might be stored in the same database as
> other tables,
> > so when a database is copied from prodcution to test, the
> changes have to be
> > re-introduced.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >         Bob
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dick Brooks [mailto:dick@8760.com]
> > Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 9:56 AM
> > To: Miller, Robert (GXS); Nikola Stojanovic;
> > ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> > Subject: RE: Test Indicator Issue
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > I don't understand how separate test/production URL's does the
> following:
> >
> > > referenced below.  But I contend that these other ways reduce the
> > > parallelism of the test system to a greater extent than does
> a test flag.
> >
> > Please explain. Thanks.
> >
> > Dick Brooks
> > Group 8760
> > 110 12th Street North
> > Birmingham, AL 35203
> > dick@8760.com
> > 205-250-8053
> > Fax: 205-250-8057
> > http://www.8760.com/
> >
> > InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Miller, Robert (GXS) [mailto:Robert.Miller@gxs.ge.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 9:23 AM
> > > To: Nikola Stojanovic; ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> > > Subject: RE: Test Indicator Issue
> > >
> > >
> > > List-Unsubscribe:
> > >  <mailto:ebxml-transport-request@lists.ebxml.org?body=unsubscribe>
> > > List-Archive: <http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-transport>
> > > List-Help: <http://lists.ebxml.org/doc/email-manage.html>,
> > >  <mailto:ebxml-transport-request@lists.ebxml.org?body=help>
> > >
> > > Yes there are other ways to indicate a 'test' message, two of
> which are
> > > referenced below.  But I contend that these other ways reduce the
> > > parallelism of the test system to a greater extent than does
> a test flag.
> > > Use of a test flag is a proven practice. So my advice is add the
> > > test flag -
> > > "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >        Bob Miller
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Nikola Stojanovic [mailto:nhomest1@twcny.rr.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 8:57 AM
> > > To: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> > > Subject: Re: First issue [was: Outstanding Issues - LONG please red to
> > > end}
> > >
> > >
> > > <Dick Brooks>
> > > There are others means to indicate a "test" versus
> "production" message
> > > exchange. For example:
> > > - separate production and test ebxml handler URL's
> (mailboxes, FTP sites,
> > > etc.)
> > > - separate production and test Party ID's
> > > </Dick Brooks>
> > >
> > > Makes sense. I agree.
> > >
> > > Nikola
> > >
>