Re: Test Indicator Issue

[Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

I suppose so.  XML 1.0 doesn't claim conformance to RFC2119.

Regards,
Marty

*************************************************************************************

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************


Scott Hinkelman
11/30/2000 03:46 PM

To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>, Prasad Yendluri
      <pyendluri@webmethods.com>, ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
From: Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Subject:  Re: Test Indicator Issue  (Document link: Martin W. Sachs)

I agree, it should be part of the configuration file (CPA).
-- I guess if I say "optional" in context of XML 1.0 I should get away with
it :)

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



Martin W Sachs
11/30/2000 02:29 PM

To:   Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>, Prasad Yendluri
      <pyendluri@webmethods.com>, ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
From: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
Subject:  Re: Test Indicator Issue  (Document link: Scott Hinkelman)

The solution, as usual, is to specify in the CPA whether the test indicator
is to be used.  TRP should put it on its list of requirements on TP if the
test indicator is adopted.

As elswhere, it is forbidden to use the term "optional" to refer to
cardinality of 0...1 or 0...n since that trips over RFC 2119 and would
confuse vendors.  Tags with these cardinalities may be used at the
discretion of the parties but vendors must always support them.

Regards,
Marty

*************************************************************************************

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************



Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS on 11/30/2000 03:14:01 PM

To:   christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
cc:   Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>,
      ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
Subject:  Re: Test Indicator Issue



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