Re: Test Indicator Issue

[Scott Hinkelman <srh@us.ibm.com>]

The downside of this is of course is "optionality" or "open semantics"
impact interoperability. We need to think this one carefully.

Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
XML Industry Enablement
IBM e-business Standards Strategy
512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074



christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com> on 11/30/2000 02:08:19 PM

To:   Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>,
      ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
Subject:  Re: Test Indicator Issue



Scott,

This is, I believe the rough consensus we achieved with
today's call. Of course, not all factions were represented;-)

I'll be posting a formal proposal shortly which provides
basically what you suggest, for the very reasons you cite.

I for one don't think that this is a feature I'd use myself, but
since many protocols do have such a feature, they would be
hard pressed to find a means of achieving that same
functionality of we do not provide for it in some manner.

Cheers,

Chris

Scott Hinkelman wrote:
>
> Something to keep in mind:
> If it is elected to be dropped, then some verticals that use such a thing
> (regardless of
> their intended use) will have to accommodate it regardless, and will its
> absence
> be viewed as a shortcoming? One option is to include it,
> with semantics to be used as seen fit.......
>
> Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
> XML Industry Enablement
> IBM e-business Standards Strategy
> 512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
> srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074
>
> christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com> on 11/30/2000 01:35:58 PM
>
> To:   Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
> cc:   ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject:  Re: Test Indicator Issue
>
> Prasad,
>
> Thanks for the feedback. It hasn't been voted up or
> down yet. I will be sending out two proposals for a vote
> via the list shortly.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
> Prasad Yendluri wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am a little late jumping onto this thread but, here is my two cents
on
> this:
> >
> > In my experience people have used this flag (say in RosettaNet) to test
> their production
> > sites prior to going "live". Having the test indicator in the actual
> message (header),
> > that is transferred alleviates any legal binding of such test messages.
> >
> > If this is already voted down please ignore.
> >
> > Thanks, Prasad