Subject: EDIINT-Features scenarios

From: "Kyle Meadors" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 11:00:30 -0600

Since there appears to be consensus in using EDIINT–Features header to
announce feature support in trading partner, I have put together the
following scenarios. Are these accurate? I have also included the
EDIINT–Features draft which was issued last year to IETF. Does it convey all
information needed for a robust implementation?

Actors: Company Alpha and Trading Partners Bravo and Charley

Initial Condition: Alpha has trading relationship with Bravo and both are
using AS2–Version: 1.1 products. TP Charley is schedule to be setup with
Alpha.

Action 1: Alpha upgrades product to AS2–Version: 1.2 using EDIINT–Features.
It supports feature CEM.

Expected Outcome–1: All messages coming out of Alpha contain EDIINT–Features
header and AS2–Version: 1.2.

Expected Outcome–2: Bravo ignores and does NOT fail Alpha’s messages and
processes them “normally”. Alpha does NOT send CEM messages to Bravo because
it does not detect EDIINT–Features support for CEM.

Action 2: Bravo upgrades product to AS2–Version: 1.2 using EDIINT–Features.
It supports features CEM and MA.

Expected Outcome–1: All messages coming out of Bravo contain EDIINT–Features
header and AS2–Version: 1.2.

Expected Outcome–2: Both Alpha and Bravo recognize each other’s support of
CEM through EDIINT–Features header, and Bravo recognizes Alpha does NOT
support MA.

Action 3: Alpha onramps Charley as a trading partner. 

Expected Outcome–1: Certificates for both Alpha and Charley MUST be
exchanged out–of–band

Expected Outcome–2: After trading begins, Alpha recognizes Charley does NOT
support CEM through its messages.

Action 4: Alpha issues new certificates.

Expected Outcome–1: Alpha sends new certificates through CEM to Bravo. Bravo
follows CEM procedure and upgrades certificates.

Expected Outcome–2: Alpha exchanges new certificates with Charley
out–of–band. Charley upgrades new certificates and notifies Alpha of
upgrade.

Kyle Meadors

Principal, Test Process

Drummond Group Inc.

615.212.0826

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release Date: 1/12/2006

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 12:26:31 -0500

In the Action 4,

Assumption: Alpha is planning to use the same certificate with Bravo and
Charley for signing the message. 

With CEM, Alpha would be able to communicate with Bravo, the effective
date/time of new certificate in CEM and things happen automatically.
However, in the case of Charley it being manual there may be timing
issue. Adding some additional scenarios that actually handles the
"Certificate Change" itself would be helpful. Especially, if there is a
potential need for a product to maintain two certificates at the same
time until both TPs has been migrated to new certificate.

** This should not be an issue when Alpha maintains different
certificate to sign the message when sending message to different TPs.

________________________________

From: Kyle Meadors [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 11:01 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: EDIINT-Features scenarios

Since there appears to be consensus in using EDIINT-Features header to
announce feature support in trading partner, I have put together the
following scenarios. Are these accurate? I have also included the
EDIINT-Features draft which was issued last year to IETF. Does it convey
all information needed for a robust implementation?

Initial Condition: Alpha has trading relationship with Bravo and both
are using AS2-Version: 1.1 products. TP Charley is schedule to be setup
with Alpha.

Action 1: Alpha upgrades product to AS2-Version: 1.2 using
EDIINT-Features. It supports feature CEM.

Expected Outcome-1: All messages coming out of Alpha contain
EDIINT-Features header and AS2-Version: 1.2.

Expected Outcome-2: Bravo ignores and does NOT fail Alpha's messages and
processes them "normally". Alpha does NOT send CEM messages to Bravo
because it does not detect EDIINT-Features support for CEM.

Action 2: Bravo upgrades product to AS2-Version: 1.2 using
EDIINT-Features. It supports features CEM and MA.

Expected Outcome-1: All messages coming out of Bravo contain
EDIINT-Features header and AS2-Version: 1.2.

Expected Outcome-2: Both Alpha and Bravo recognize each other's support
of CEM through EDIINT-Features header, and Bravo recognizes Alpha does
NOT support MA.

Expected Outcome-1: Certificates for both Alpha and Charley MUST be
exchanged out-of-band

Expected Outcome-2: After trading begins, Alpha recognizes Charley does
NOT support CEM through its messages.

Expected Outcome-1: Alpha sends new certificates through CEM to Bravo.
Bravo follows CEM procedure and upgrades certificates.

Expected Outcome-2: Alpha exchanges new certificates with Charley
out-of-band. Charley upgrades new certificates and notifies Alpha of
upgrade.

Kyle Meadors

Principal, Test Process

Drummond Group Inc.

615.212.0826

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release Date:
1/12/2006