OASIS Electronic Court Filing Technical Committee Preliminary Springboard

OASIS Electronic Court Filing Technical Committee Preliminary Springboard Findings September 20, 2013

Overview • • Springboard WSDL and Schema Locations Inconsistent UBL Schemas ECF Version(s) Supported by WS SIP Inconsistent Reliable Messaging Standards WS-Addressing Not Specified Future SIP Considerations Baseline specifications • ECF v 4. 0 WS SIP 2. 01 package • ECF v 4. 01 package 1/26/2022 ECF TC September 2013 2

Springboard • ECF Conformance testing • Implicit “quality assurance” for technical artifacts 1/26/2022 ECF TC September 2013 3

Springboard Dashboard 1/26/2022 ECF TC September 2013 4

Springboard Conformance 1/26/2022 ECF TC September 2013 5

WSDL and Schema Locations • WSDL files are not clearly linked to the schema files • Loose references in the ECF Related Work and Message sections • Recommendation - Provide schemas or “readme” in SIP package 1/26/2022 ECF TC September 2013 6

Inconsistent UBL Schemas • ECF-4. 0 -Fees. Calculation. Response. Message references "urn: oasis: names: specification: ubl: schema: xsd: Common. Aggregate. Co mponents-2" namespace with version 2 • ECF-4. 0 -Payment. Message and ECF-4. 0 -Payment. Receipt. Message references version 2. 1 • Recommendation - Determine desired version and modify contrary reference and ensure the WSDL and associated schemas will validate 1/26/2022 ECF TC September 2013 7

ECF Version(s) Supported by WS SIP • ECF v 4. 0 WS SIP 2. 01 document references ECF V 4 rather than V 4. 01 (Related Works page 1) • Recommendation - Clarify which version(s) of the ECF specification are acceptable for the ECF v 4. 0 WS SIP 2. 01 1/26/2022 ECF TC September 2013 8

Inconsistent Reliable Messaging Standards • WS-Reliability, WS-Reliable. Messaging 1. 0 and WS-Reliable. Messaging 1. 1 are referenced in the SIP • Recommendation - Specify the required reliable messaging standard(s) or just reference the Web Services Profile which specifies the reliable messaging standard(s) 1/26/2022 ECF TC September 2013 9

WS-Addressing Not Specified • SIP does not overtly specify the use of WS-Addressing although other normative standards in the Profile require the use of WS-Addressing • Challenge - Source and destination identifiers are included in the SOAP body. Under these circumstance when message level encryption is used for the SOAP body, any exchange other than a direct source to destination exchange would not be defined for the Profile • Recommendation – Consider a formal binding for address-related information between ECF and WS-Addressing, e. g. specific requirement to duplication destination in the WS-Addressing To element 1/26/2022 ECF TC September 2013 10

Future SIP Considerations • Best practice would be to separate addressing/metadata from message content with the addressing/metadata signed and the message content encrypted • Message level encryption with unencrypted addressing is likely to be needed to support intermediaries • Despite the common association of SOAP with HTTP web services, SOAP is protocol independent and has formal bindings to HTTP, SMTP, and more; SOAP could serve as a broader ECF SIP foundation with implicit support for the underlying protocol bindings 1/26/2022 ECF TC September 2013 11