S†…„ѓ‚ЃЂ~}|{zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcba`_^]\[ZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA@?>=<;:9876543210/.-,+*)('&%$#"!  х` ()‚ `^BLT TTTmation in the PICS. For every supported feature claimed in theMќях_ K PICS the corresponding test cases in the test suites are selectedKџях` L and executed to check the correct implementation of these featuresLћяхWЄHC under an extensive range of valid and invalid conditions.C§яхO   аях\ H For non-supported features, some recipient test cases shall beHўях_ K K IPMS(P2), MTS(P1) and RTS implementations are defined in clause 7KџяхX;OD of this document. This check is performed by analysing theD¦ях@ , information in the PICS documents.,ѕях   аях7 # 12.3 Test Case Selection#Зях   аях^ J The tests to be performed are selected primarily on the basis ofJ яхa M infor > Figure 7/X.403 The Conformance Assessment Procedure.>¬ях   аях мях4T@Y@P 12.2 Analysis of PICS Кях   аях]ІІІI The first phase in conformance assessment is to ensure that theIЎях`ІІІL features claimed to be supported by an IUT comply with appropriateLћяхX D conformance requirements. The conformance requirements forD¦ях_ях мяхЄHмяхO мях мях мях мях мях мях мях мях мях мях мях¦TLРRмяхІІІмяхІІІмях мях мях;Oмях мях мях   аяхR Жях   аяхD 0 - The assessment of these documents.0єях;O  аяхL 8 - The selection and execution of test cases.8Іях   аяхa M - The analysis of the results and the production of test reports.Mќях   аях   аях мях мях мях мal terms how real testing may be done.A©ях   аях= ) 12.1 Overview of the Procedure)Бях   аяхS¦TLРR? The procedures needed to assess the conformance of an?«ях5T@Y@P! implementation include:!Йях   аях`ІІІL - The completion of the PICS and PIXIT proformas by the supplierLћях8ІІІ$ of the implementation.$ Conformance Assessment Procedures0єяхO   аях^ J This Recommendation deals only with abstract test specificationsJ яхa M for Message Handling Systems. It does not deal with the realizationMќях` L of these test specifications nor with their execution. This clauseLћяхY E in the Recommendation is purely for information purposes toEҐяхU A describe in gener   аях_;OK Specifies the values of the ASPs and PDUs used in the DynamicKџях'  Part.Чях   аях2  6 Cross referencesМях"  Ьях^ J Provides an index to all values used in the main body of theJ ях-  test suite.Сях   аяхDЄH0 12. Declares the names and types of all items to be used inEҐях: & defining the test cases.&Дях   аях.¦TLРR 4 Dynamic PartРяхT@Y@P  аях` L This is the main body of the test suite and defines test casesLћяхAІІІ- in terms of trees of behaviour.-ЅяхІІІ  аях2  5 Constraints PartМяхЄH  аях7O # 2 Summary of Test cases#Зях   аях] I This is a list of all tests giving the test identifier, theIЎяхa M test reference and a short title for each test case in the testMќях(  suite.Цях   аях3  3 Declarations PartЛях   аяхY E d Notation as described in Annexe A of thisMќях-  Recommendation.Сях   аяхW C Each test suite specification is defined in six sections:C§ях   аях.  1 IntroductionРях   аяхa M This contains an overview describing the scope of the tests andMќяхB . the structure of the test suite..јях   аях&  (e) UserШях!   Эях` L A user-interface process or a computer application which makesLћях0ЄH use of an MHS.ОяхO мях,  11.2 NotationТях;O  аях^ J The Conformance Test Suites for Message Handling Systems use theJ яхa M Tree and Tabular Combine K purpose of the test and to assign a verdict "pass", "fail" orKџях1;O "inconclusive".Нях   аях,  (d) Test EventТях!   Эях[ G An indivisible unit of test specification at the level ofGЈях_ K abstraction of the specification (e.g. sending or receiving aKџях.  single PDU).Рях   аях,  (b) Test GroupТях!   Эях[¦TLРRG A set of related test cases. Test groups may be nested toGЈяхNT@Y@P: provide a logical structuring of test cases.:°ях   аях+ІІІ (c) Test CaseУях!ІІІ  Эях` L Specifies the sequences of test events required to achieve theLћях_O ' of the following definitions:'Гях   аях,  (a) Test SuiteТях!   Эяхa M A set of test cases, possibly combined into nested test groups,Mќях` L necessary to perform conformance testing of an implementation.Lћях!   ЭяхU A The test suites do not imply an order of execution.A©ях ed in the testBЁях[ G definitions and will ask the implementor to specify how theseGЈяхP < primitives can be invoked or observed (if at all).<®ях   аях0  11. Test NotationОях   аях/  11.1 DefinitionsПях   аях_ЄHK The notation used to define the MHS test specifications makes useKџях;to invoke and observe this behaviour during test executionJ ях` L the test operator must know how (if at all) these abstract serviceLћях_ІІІK primitives can be invoked or observed at the real accessible userKџях(ІІІ interface.Цях   аяхa M The IPMS(P2), MTS(P1) and RTS PIXIT proformas will list all the IUTMќяхV;OB upper layer abstract service primitives us K The Protocol Implementation eXtra Information for Testing (PIXIT)Kџях^ J is supplied by an implementor specifying information needed by aJ ях= ) tester to execute a test suite.)Бях   аях_ K The IPMS(P2), MTS(P1) and RTS test suites define the behaviour ofKџях\¦TLРRH the implementation in terms of abstract service primitives. InHўях^T@Y@PJ order (P1) service elements are not O›яхd  PЇъъъъъъъъcontained in the IPMS (P2) test suite. Where the testing of MTS (P1) isPљяхd  PЇъъъъъъъъnot performed using a UA, MTS (P1) tests may need to be repeated using PљяхS  ?Їъъъъъъъъa UA in order to ensure conformance to the IPMS (P2).?«ях   аяхa M 10.2 Protocol Implementation Extra Information for Testing (PIXIT)Mќях   аях_ ctions.Мях;O  аях^ J - The protocol features that have been implemented in order toJ ях7 # support the services.#Зях   аяхb  NЇъъъъъъъъThe IPMS (P2) PICS explicitly includes the MTS (P1) service elements Nњяхd  PЇъъъъъъъъmade available by the IPMS (P2). In order to avoid duplication with thePљяхc  OЇъъъъъъъъMTS (P1) test suite, tests for such MTS  not implement.Оях¦TLРR  аях`T@Y@PL PICS proformas for IPMS(P2), MTS(P1) and RTS are shown in Annex B,Lћях` L C and D. These proformas specify the information to be supplied byLћях8ІІІ$ an implementor concerning:$ЖяхІІІ  аях` L - The services that are supported for origination, reception andLћях2  relay funuirements, in terms ofKџяхV B optional and mandatory features, of the X.400 seriesBЁях2  Recommendations.Мях   аях^ J - To select the originator tests to be executed. Recipient andJ ях] I relay tests will be performed to check the behaviour of theIЎяхb N system even when it is requested to handle features that it doesNњях0Ґях` L information supplied by an implementor that specifies the protocolLћяхP < features implemented in a Message Handling System.<®яхЄH  аяхRO > This information is used during conformance testing:>¬ях   аях` L - To check that the protocol features that have been implementedLћях_ K are consistent with the conformance req J The X.409 Tests check the IUT's encoding and decoding of SessionJ ях0  Service User Data.Оях   аяхM 9 10. Information to be supplied by implementors9±ях   аяхX D 10.1 Protocol Implementation Conformance Statement (PICS)D¦ях   аяхY E The Protocol Implementation Conformance Statement (PICS) isEM The Data Transfer Tests check that data is transferred correctly inMќях^ J accordance with the values of the connection elements negotiatedJ ях? + during association establishment.+їях;O  аях` L The Association Recovery Tests check that the IUT can recover fromLћяхV B breaks in connection both inside and outside activities.BЁях   аях^ ( - Association Recovery Tests(Вях-  - X.409 TestsСях   аях^ J The Association Establishment Tests check the negotiation of theJ ях2  connection elements.Мях¦TLРR  аяхXT@Y@PD The Association Release Tests check the orderly release ofD¦ях+  associations.УяхІІІ  аяхaІІІand MTS(P1) test suites.Hўях   аяхЄHмях? + 9.2 Structure of RTS test suites+їяхO   аяхY E The RTS test suite is made up of five groups of test cases:EҐях   аяхA - - Association Establishment Tests-Ѕях; ' - Association Release Tests'Гях5 ! - Data Transfer Tests!Йях<particular test group may actually be achieved by test cases inIЎях,T@Y@P another group.Тях   аях;ІІІ' 'ГяхІІІмях мях мях;Oмях мях мях мях мях мях   аях\ H Figure 6/X.403 Structure of IPMS(P2) vered in theJ ях4T@Y@P other test groups. Кях мях` L As indicated in (a) to (e) above the number of test cases has beenLћяхa M minimized by taking advantage of the fact that the performance of aMќяхZ F given test case may cover more than one test purpose. FigureF¤яхY E 6/X.403 shows how some of the test purposes identified in aEҐях]¦TLРRI are carriedLћях_ K out in the initial tests and the X.409 tests. Service ElementKџяхb N tests include both tests for specific service elements and testsNњяхV B for combinations of interdependent service elements.BЁях   аях1  (e) Additional TestНях!   Эях^¦TLРRJ The Additional Test group checks features not cor the IPMS(P2)/MTS(P1)D¦яхb N protocols. Many of these tests are necessarily performed as partNњях?ЄH+ of the Service Element tests.+їяхO   аях7 # (d) Service Element tests#Зях!   Эяхb N Service Element tests check the capability of the IUT to supportNњях` L the service elements in X.400. Some of these tests T. Encoding tests are performed by checkingLћях= ) PDUs received from the IUT.)Бях   аях8 $ (c) Protocol Element tests$Жях!   Эяхb N Protocol Element tests identify test purposes for every protocolNњяхa M element in the IPMS(P2)/MTS(P1) protocols. This is important inMќяхX D ensuring a full test coverage foKџях[ G and that it is sensible to continue with full conformanceGЈях*ІІІ testing.ФяхІІІ  аях-  (b) X.409 TestsСях!   ЭяхZ;OF The X.409 Tests check the IUT's encoding and decoding ofF¤яхa M protocol elements. Decoding tests are performed by transmittingMќях` L test PDUs to the IUMTS(P1) test suites consist of five groups of testMќях$  cases:Ъях   аях/  (a) Initial TestsПях!   Эяхa M The Initial Tests check mandatory features in a small number ofMќях_¦TLРRK test cases. They have been defined in order to check that theKџях_T@Y@PK implementation correctly supports the main mandatory featuresints+їях   аях: & 9. Structure of test suites&Дях   аях` L The IPMS(P2) and MTS(P1) test suites have a common structure whichLћяхGЄH3 differs from that of the RTS test suites.3·яхO   аяхP < 9.1 Structure of IPMS(P2) and MTS(P1) test suites<®ях   аяхa M The IPMS(P2) and I Tests are performed to check that an IUT can perform correctIЎях0ЄH recovery after:Оях!O   Эях.  - User abortsРях!   Эях2  - Provider abortsМях!   Эях4  - Exception reports Кях!   Эях? + - Not acknowledged checkpo values.Фях!   ЭяхL 8 - The correct operation of token exchange.8Іях!   ЭяхS ? - The correct confirmation of confirmed services.?«ях!   Эяхa M - The correct reaction to invalid (eg non-negotiated) elements.Mќях   аях*  (d) RecoveryФях!   Эях] Only a few tests are required to check the correct@ЄяхM¦TLРR9 implementation of the RTS release features.9±яхT@Y@PмяхN : (c) The data transfer phase with token exchange.:°ях!ІІІ  Эях@ІІІ, The data transfer tests check:,ѕях   аях_ K - The correct operation of data transfer using the negotiatedKџях*;O t and negotiation phase.Mќях!   Эяхb N The X.410 Recommendation allows different negotiable options andNњях^ J the negotiation phase is tested exhaustively using valid andJ ях3  invalid elements.Лях   аяхT @ (b) The orderly release of the connection/association.@Єях!   ЭяхT @ - Checking the validity of the reaction of the IUT as recipient.Lћях   аях[ G - Checking the validity of the PDUs transmitted by the IUT.GЈях   аях= ) 8.3.4 Strategy for RTS testing)БяхЄH  аяхDO 0 The following testing phases are used:0єях   аяхa M (a) The connection/association establishmenriginator, for each service elementJ яхV B supported by the implementation, tests are performed by:BЁях   аях\;OH - Invoking the IUT to send a message to multiple recipients.Hўяхa M At least one recipient will be attached to the IUT itself and aMќяхU A further recipient will be attached to a remote MTA.A©ях   аях` L TA suchNњяхH 4 that the IUT has to relay the message.4¶ях   аях` L - Checking the validity of the reaction of the IUT as recipient.Lћях   аях_¦TLРRK - Checking that the PDUs that are relayed are not corrupted andKџях=T@Y@P) are modified appropriately.)Бях   аях^ІІІJ With the IUT as a recipient/o?«ях   аях_ K With the IUT as a relay recipient, for each service element testsKџях/  are performed by:Пях   аях` L - Sending a set of valid and invalid PDUs destined for more thanLћях` L one recipient. At least one of these recipients is attached toLћяхb N the IUT and a further recipient is attached to a remote Mlocal reaction of the UA.5µях`ЄHL - Checking the validity of any further PDUs generated by the UA.LћяхO   аяхW C With the IUT as relay, for each service element tests areC§ях+  performed by:Уях   аяхY E - The tester sending valid and invalid PDUs for relaying.EҐяхS ? - Checking the validity of the reaction of the IUT.# - Invoking the service.#ЗяхN : - Checking the validity of the resulting PDUs.:°ях   аях^ J With the IUT as recipient, for each service element supported byJ яхI 5 the implementation, tests are performed by:5µях   аях] I - The tester sending valid and invalid PDUs for that service.IЎяхI 5 - Observing the IUT as originatorЛях2  - IUT as recipientМях.ІІІ - IUT as relayРях8ІІІ$ - IUT as relay recipient$Жях= ) - IUT as recipient/originator)Бях   аях_;OK With the IUT as originator, for each service element supported byKџяхI 5 the implementation, tests are performed by:5µях   аях7 аях^ J It is assumed that the testing of the MT layer is done through aJ ях)  User Agent.Хях   аяхA - 8.3.3 Strategy for MTS(P1) testing-Ѕях   аяхY E When testing the operation of a MTS(P1) implementation fiveEҐяхA - categories of tests are identified.-Ѕях¦TLРR  аях3T@Y@P - ях   аяхZ F In order to avoid unnecessary duplication of test cases, IPMF¤ях_ K service elements which are also MT service elements (for instanceKџях\ H Delivery Notification) are listed in the MTS(P1) test suite inHўях`ЄHL conjunction with the corresponding MT service elements, and not inLћях6O " the IPMS(P2) test suite."Иях  PDUs to the originator..јях;O  аях\ H With the IUT as recipient, for each service element, tests areHўях+  performed by:Уях   аях] I - The tester sending valid and invalid PDUs for that service.IЎяхI 5 - Observing the local reaction of the UA.5µях` L - Checking the validity of any further PDUs generated by the UA.Lћ  аях_ K With the IUT as originator, for each service element supported byKџяхI 5 the implementation, tests are performed by:5µях   аях7 # - Invoking the service.#ЗяхY E - The tester checking the validity of the resulting PDUs.EҐяхZ F - Where appropriate the tester returning valid and invalidF¤яхB . response F PDUs. Encoding tests only allow the valid behaviour of X.409F¤ях5 ! encoding to be checked.!Йях¦TLРR  аяхBІІІ. 8.3.2 Strategy for IPMS(P2) testing.јяхІІІ  аяхE 1 Two categories of test are identified :1№ях   аях3;O - IUT as originatorЛях2  - IUT as recipientМях  K requests that will generate PDUs whose encoding will exerciseKџяхa M major X.409 features. The tester must check the validity of theMќяхT @ coding of the resulting PDUs generated by the IUT.@Єях   аяхX D The decoding tests allow the X.409 decoding features of anD¦ях_ K implementation to be fully exercised using valid and invalid testKџяхZ ests are performed byMќях_ K transmitting the test PDUs to the IUT and observing the localKџях` L reaction of the implementation and/or any PDUs returned to theLћях)  tester.Хях!ЄH  Эях0O  - Encoding TestsОях!   Эяхb N These tests are constructed by identifying a set of user serviceNњях_ ях;O  аяхK 7 Two categories of X.409 tests are identified:7іях   аях0  - Decoding TestsОях   аяхa M These tests are constructed by identifying X.409 features to beMќяхb N exercised and devising sets of correctly and incorrectly encodedNњяхa M test PDUs containing these features. The tS testing. TheMќях^ J features tested are the data types defined in X.409, the variousJ ях_ІІІK forms of length encoding and the use of primitive and constructorKџях]ІІІI data elements. To increase the likelihood that the tests can beIЎяхa M performed, the test cases wherever possible have been defined usingMќях_ K the protocol elements associated with mandatory service elements.Kџ.9±ях   аях? + 8.3.1 Strategy for X.409 testing+їях   аях[ G The X.409 test cases defined in the CCITT Conformance TestingGЈях[ G Specification Manuals associated with this Recommendation areGЈях_¦TLРRK applicable only to X.400 message handling systems. The testing ofKџяхaT@Y@PM X.409 is done as part of the MTS(P1), IPMS(P2) and RTcommon values.Мях!T@Y@P  Эях] I - If there are no bounds, test an extreme value besides theIЎях0ІІІ common ones.Оях!ІІІ  Эях8 $ For invalid behaviour:$Жях!   Эях^;OJ - The number of test cases for a particular type of error isJ яхM 9 reduced to one or just a few common ones number of test cases using the following principles:BЁях   аях6 " For valid behaviour:"Иях!   Эях` L - If there is a small number of valid protocol element values,Lћях5 ! test all of them.!Йях!   Эях\ H - If there is a range of values, test the bounds and a fewHўях2¦TLРR rectly encoded length indicator) orJ ях!   Эяхb N - for RTS a lower layer ASP event issued by the tester used withNњях_ЄHK parameters that are not allowed or not appropriate (exampleKџяхLO 8 SPSN in SConnect) by X.400 restrictions.8Іях   аяхT @ (f) The depth of testing is restricted to a reasonable@ЄяхV B - a correct PDU incorporating an element which is?«ях^ J syntactically correct and in range, but conflicts with theJ ях8 $ negotiated value, or$Жях!   Эях] I - a PDU sent by the tester which is syntactically incorrectIЎяхb N (examples are a missing mandatory protocol element, an out-of-Nњях^ J range value or an incorrdance with the X.400 series ofBЁях2  Recommendations.МяхІІІ  аяхXІІІD (e) Test cases for invalid behaviour are characterized by:D¦ях   аях` L - A correct PDU or event initiated by the tester in a protocolLћях^;OJ state where it is not permitted (an inopportune event), orJ ях!   ЭяхS ? r ASP events at the tester4¶яхE 1 - upper layer ASP events at the IUT1№ях   аях^ J (c) The test cases define the sequencing of these ASP events andJ яхT @ the associated parameters, in particular the PDUs.@Єях   аях`¦TLРRL (d) Test cases for valid behaviour specify ASP event sequences andLћяхVT@Y@PB PDUs that are in acco The MHS test specifications are designed using the followingF¤ях'  concepts:ЧяхЄH  аях_O K (a) A test specification is defined as a test suite composed of aKџяхQ = number of test cases as defined in clause 11.1.=­ях   аяхD 0 (b) Test cases are defined in terms of0єях   аяхH 4 - lower layen of the RTS test cases includes events at a thirdJ ях` L SAP at the IUT (SAP-I) between the MT Layer and RTS. The events ofLћях^ J this SAP are used only for clarification and it is not used as aJ ях"  PCO.Ьях   аях мях мях мях7 # 8.3 Test Design Strategy#Зях   аяхZ F makes use of the SessionJ яхQ = Service Primitives defined in Recommendation X.215.=­ях   аях^ J For the IUT, the PCO is the SAP defined at the upper boundary ofJ ях_ЄHK the User Agent Layer. This PCO makes use of the same hypotheticalKџяхVO B Service Primitives defined for IPMS(P2) (section 8.2.1).BЁях   аях^ J The descriptioІмях мях мях;OмяхH 4 4¶ях   аяхX D Figure 5/X.403 Points of control and observation for RTS.D¦ях   аях   аях` L For the tester, the PCO is the SAP defined at the boundary betweenLћях^ J the RTS and the Session Layer. This PCO ЄHB The RTS test cases are described using the PCOs shown inBЁях-O  Figure 5/X.403:Сях   аяхG 3 3·ях мях мях мях мях мях мях мях мях¦TLРRмяхT@Y@Pмях мяхІІІмяхІІceIЎяхI 5 Primitives defined in Recommendation X.411.5µях   аях_ K The testing of relay functions requires more than one tester SAP.Kџях] I Similarly the testing of multiple destination delivery requiresIЎях: & more than one UA on the IUT.&Дях   аях1  8.2.3 PCOs for RTSНях   аяхVY@P  аях` L For the tester, the PCO is the SAP defined at the boundary betweenLћях`ІІІL the MT Layer and the RTS. This PCO makes use of the RTS primitivesLћях>ІІІ* defined in Recommendation X.410.*Аях   аяхa M For the IUT, the PCO is the SAP defined at the boundary between theMќях];OI UA Layer and the MT Layer. This PCO makes use of the MT ServiмяхT@Y@Pмях мяхІІІмяхІІІмях мях мях;Oмях мях мях мях мях мях мях мях   аях   аях\ H Figure 4/X.403 Points of control and observation for MTS(P1).HўяхЄHмяхT@nd receivingLћях] I IP-messages, in order that the test cases can be described in aIЎях)  formal way.Хях   аях   аях5 ! 8.2.2 PCOs for MTS(P1)!Йях   аяхZ F The MTS(P1) test cases are described using the PCOs shown inF¤ях-  Figure 4/X.403:Сях   аях¦TLРRTransfer Layer Service Primitives defined in>¬ях3  Recommendation X.411.Лях   аях^ J For the IUT, the PCO is the SAP defined at the upper boundary ofJ яхa M the User Agent Layer. However Recommendation X.420 does not includeMќяхXЄHD definition of Service Primitives and it has therefore beenD¦ях`O L necessary to construct hypothetical ones for sending a  аях];OI Figure 3/X.403 Points of control and observation for IPMS(P2).IЎях   аях   аяхa M For the tester, the Point of Control and Observation is the ServiceMќях_ K Access Point (SAP) defined at the boundary between the User AgentKџях] I Layer and the Message Transfer Layer. This PCO makes use of theIЎяхR > Message ) test cases are described using the Points of ControlKџяхM 9 and Observation (PCOs) shown in Figure 3/X.403:9±ях   аяхG 3 3·ях мях мях мях мях мях¦TLРRмяхT@Y@Pмях мяхІІІмяхІІІмях мях  I indirectly through a user interface. Where testing is performedIЎяхa M through a user interface, the mapping of events between the SAP andMќяхZ F the user interface is provided by the supplier of the IUT asF¤ях7 # described in clause 10.2.#Зях   аях6O " 8.2.1 PCOs for IPMS(P2)"Иях   аях_ K The IPMS(P2r and theBЁях_ЄHK implementation under test (IUT). These PCOs are generally ServiceKџях`O L Access Points (SAPs) and the events are generally Abstract ServiceLћях[ G Primitives (ASPs). This does not imply that manufacturers areGЈях` L required to have accessible SAPs or to implement ASPs within theirLћях_ K systems. During test execution the PCOs of an IUT may be accessedKџях]ях;Oмях мях   аяхN : Figure 2/X.403 Relaying MTA test configuration.:°ях   аях   аяхD 0 8.2 Points of Control and Observation0єях   аяхa M Test cases are described abstractly in terms of events at points ofMќяхV B control and observation (PCO) in both the testere 1/X.403 End system configuration.3·ях   аях   аях` L The second configuration is shown in Figure 2/X.403 and is used toLћяхM 9 test the relay aspects of the MTS(P1) protocol.9±ях   аях   аях¦TLРRмяхT@Y@Pмях мяхІІІмяхІІІмях мях м  аях` L Two test configurations are used. The first configuration is shownLћях^ J in Figure 1/X.403 and is used to test IPMS(P2), MTS(P1) and RTS.J ях   аях   аях мях мях мях мяхЄHмяхO мях мях мях мяхG 3 Figu00 series of Recommendations canJ яхYІІІE not be tested for those implementations for which it is notEҐях]ІІІI possible to perform all the required tests for features labeledIЎяхE 1 mandatory, basic or essential optional.1№ях мях мях5 ! 8. Testing methodology!Йях   аях6 " 8.1 Test configurations"Иях  ort the maximumIЎях\ H lengths/occurrences of the constraints. Values above theHўяхa M constraints may be supported but the conformance requirementsMќях_ K on the implementation upon reception of a length/occurrenceKџяхa¦TLРRM exceeding the constraint are the same as for protocol errors.MќяхT@Y@P  аях^ J Claims of conformance to the X.4imum lengths and maximum number of occurrences areC§яхC / interpreted in the following way:/»ях   аяхZ F - on origination: the implementation may support maximumF¤ях^ J lengths/occurrences up to but not exceeding the constraintJ ях*  value.Фях!   Эях] I - on reception: the implementation must supp N by the equipment vendor, and the specific actions taken in theseNњяхY E situations are defined by the vendor and not subject toEҐях.  conformance.Рях   аях_ K (c) The implementation correctly handles the requirements definedKџяхI 5 in X.400 Implementor's Guide Version 5.5µяхЄH  аяхWO C Max : continues to operate normally in such cases.:°ях!;O  Эях\ H The absence of a mandatory protocol element in P2 or P1 isHўях] I regarded as a protocol error. It should be noted that in anIЎях] I implemented MHS a recipient domain may choose to deliver anIЎяхb N incorrect MPDU. This should be considered as proprietary designNњяхb RH (b) The implementation is capable of handling protocol errors.HўяхT@Y@P  аяхa M The reaction of an implementation on receipt of protocol errorsMќях`ІІІL is not defined in the X.400 Series of Recommendations. For theLћяхWІІІC purpose of conformance testing the minimum additionalC§яхZ F requirement is made that the implementation subsequentlyF¤яхN ies ofKџях^ J Recommendations can be tested using the Conformance Testing J яхZ F Specification Manuals associated with this Recommendation toF¤ях*  ensure that:Фях   аях` L (a) The implementation does not act or react in a way different toLћяхK 7 the one described in the Recommendations.7іях   аях\¦TLРtoF¤ях0  support correctly:Оях   аяхF 2 - the RTS-services as defined in X.4102ёях   аях[ G - the requirements related to the RTS-Service as defined inGЈяхZ F version 5 of the CCITT X.400-Series Implementor's Guide.F¤ях   аях_ K Claims of conformance of an implementation to the X.400-SerяхZ F X.401/Table 3 and 4 and related to the MTS(P1) protocol,F¤яхC / which are claimed to be supported/»ях   аяхZЄHF - the requirements related to the P1 MT-service as definedF¤ях]O I in version 5 of the CCITT X.400-Series Implementor's Guide.IЎях   аяхZ F A system claiming to conform to the X.400 RTS-service has ях[ G - the basic MT-service elements as defined in X.400/Table 1GЈяхA - related to the MTS(P1) protocol-Ѕях   аяхY E - the MT Optional User facilities defined as Essential inEҐяхY E X.401/Table 3 and 4 and related to the MTS(P1) protocolEҐях   аяхZ F - the MT Optional User facilities defined as Additional inF¤ X.401/Table 1 and Table 2, which are claimed to be supportedJ яхT@Y@P  аяхX D - the requirements related to the IPM service as definedD¦ях]ІІІI in version 5 of the CCITT X.400-Series Implementor's Guide.IЎяхІІІ  аяхY E A system claiming to conform to the X.400 MT-service has toEҐях0  support correctly:Оях;O  аic IPM service elements as defined in X.400/Table 2Hўях   аяхZ F - the IPM Optional User facilities defined as Essential inF¤яхY E X.401/Table 1 and Table 2 (where the categorization forEҐяхQ = origination and reception should be considered)=­ях   аях[ G - the IPM Optional User facilities defined as Additional inGЈях^¦TLРRJ Y E degree of confidence that the various protocol layers of anEҐях` L implementation under test conform to the requirements of the X.400Lћях?ЄH+ series of Recommendations (1984).+їяхO   аяхZ F A system claiming to conform to the X.400 IPM-Service has toF¤ях0  support correctly:Оях   аях\ H - the basifications, users of these Manuals should be familiar with theLћях^O J X.400-Series of Recommendations and with the testing methodologyJ ях#  used.Ыях мях: & 7. Conformance requirements&Дях   аяхW C The purpose of the test specifications referenced by thisC§ях] I Recommendation is to define tests that will establish to a highIЎях specifications for the IPMS(P2), MTS(P1), RTS. The testA©яхa M specifications are written in a notation described in general termsMќях] I in clause 11. The Conformance Testing Specification Manuals areIЎях] I referred to by this Recommendation but they are not part of it.IЎях   аяхU A Since the Manuals contain detailed and unambiguous testA©ях`ЄHL spec conformance testing."Иях   аях4ІІІ (e) The test notation. КяхІІІ  аяхD 0 (f) Conformance assessment procedures.0єях   аяхV;OB 6.2 The X.400 Conformance Testing Specification ManualsBЁях   аях` L Three CCITT Conformance Testing Specification Manuals contain testLћяхU A information:>¬ях   аяхT @ (a) Conformance requirements of X.400 implementations.@Єях   аях: & (b) The testing methodology.&Дях   аяхK 7 (c) The structure of the test specifications.7іях   аяхa¦TLРRM (d) Information to be supplied by implementors as a prerequisite toMќях6T@Y@P"  аях] I The CCITT Recommendation is intended for a wide readership. TheIЎях] I Manuals are intended for test implementors and contain detailedIЎях2  test specifications.Мях   аяхЄH  аяхO ; 6.1 The X.400 Conformance Testing Recommendation;Їях   аяхR > This Recommendation gives the following,ѕях   аяхZ;OF (b) Three associated CCITT Conformance Testing SpecificationF¤ях3  Manuals entitled:Лях   аяхW C - Conformance Testing Specification Manual for IPMS(P2)C§яхV B - Conformance Testing Specification Manual for MTS(P1)BЁяхR > - Conformance Testing Specification Manual for RTS>¬ях  = No conventions are defined for this Recommendation.=­ях мях*  6. OverviewФях   ЯяхST@Y@P? There are two kinds of CCITT documents concerned with?«ях8 $ X.400 Conformance testing:$ЖяхІІІ  аях]ІІІI (a) This CCITT Recommendation entitled "X.403 Message HandlingIЎях@ , Systems: Conformance Testing".   аях: & SAP Service Access Point;&Дях   аях: & TSP Test Suite Parameter;&Дях¦TLРR  аяхHT@Y@P4 TTCN Tree and Tabular Combined Notation;4¶ях   аях0ІІІ UA User Agent.ОяхІІІ  аях-  5. ConventionsСях   аяхQ ? PICS Protocol Implementation Conformance Statement;?«яхЄH  аях[O G PIXIT Protocol Implementation Extra Information for Testing;GЈях   аях8 $ PDU Protocol data unit;$Жях   аях? + PRMD Private management domain;+їях   аях> * RTS Reliable Transfer Server;*Аях Message Transfer Agent;(Вях   аях= ) MTS Message Transfer System;)Бях   аяхK 7 P1 The Message Transfer Protocol [X.411];7іях   аяхR > P2 The Interpersonal Messaging Protocol [X.420];>¬ях   аяхF 2 PCO Point of Control and Observation;2ёях   аяхS MHS Message Handling System;)Бях   аяхD 0 IPMS Interpersonal Messaging System;0єях¦TLРR  аях?T@Y@P+ IUT Implementation Under Test;+їях   аях@ІІІ, MPDU Message Protocol Data Unit;,ѕяхІІІ  аях6 " MT Message Transfer;"Иях   аях<;O( MTA   аяхZЄHF The following abbreviations are used in this Recommendation:F¤яхO   аяхF 2 ADMD Administration management domain;2ёях   аях@ , ASP Abstract Service Primitive;,ѕях   аяхR > DSE Distributed Single layer Embedded testmethod;>¬ях   аях= )  аях<ІІІ( d) message transfer [X.411];(ВяхІІІ  аях.  e) originator;Рях   аях=;O) f) private management domain;)Бях   аях-  g) recipient;Сях   аях(  h) user.Цях   аях/  4. AbbreviationsПях+їях   аях] I This Recommendation makes use of the following terms defined inIЎяхA - Recommendation X.400, version 1984:-Ѕях   аяхD 0 a) administration management domain;0єях   аяхA - b) interpersonal message [X.420];-Ѕях¦TLРR  аях+T@Y@P c) message;Уях Сях   аях7 # b) request (primitive);#Зях   аях: & c) indication (primitive);&Дях   аях8 $ d) response (primitive);$Жях   аях7ЄH# e) confirm (primitive).#ЗяхO   аях   аях? + 3.2 Message Handling Definitionseries (1984) Implementor's Guide version 5.=­ях   аях-  3. DefinitionsСях   аяхA - 3.1 Service Convention Definitions-Ѕях   аях];OI This Recommendation makes use of the following terms defined inIЎяхA - Recommendation X.210, version 1984:-Ѕях   аях-  a) primitive;T@Y@P version 1984.Мях   аяхVІІІB X.420 Message Handling Systems: Interpersonal messagingBЁяхDІІІ0 user agent layer, version 1984.0єях   аяхU A X.210 Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) Layer ServiceA©яхJ;O6 Definitions Convention, version 1984.6ґях   аяхQ = X.400 S  аях[ G X.409 Message Handling Systems: Presentation transfer syntaxGЈях@ , and notation, version 1984.,ѕях   аяхT @ X.410 Message Handling Systems: Remote operations and@ЄяхL 8 reliable transfer server, version 1984.8Іях   аяхV¦TLРRB X.411 Message Handling Systems: Message transfer layer,BЁях2stem Model-Service Elements,IЎях2  version 1984.Мях   аяхYЄHE X.401 Message Handling Systems: Basic service elements andEҐяхLO 8 optional user facilities, version 1984.8Іях   аяхW C X.408 Message Handling Systems: Encoded information typeC§яхD 0 conversion rules, version 1984.0єях  recognized that the conformance testing of messageIЎяхX D handling systems may fall within the framework of nationalD¦яхW;OC regulations and may be subject to the testing policies ofC§яхZ F Administrations which are beyond the scope of this document.F¤ях   аях,  2. ReferencesТях   аях] I X.400 Message Handling Systems: Syrm the tests.%Еях   аяхa¦TLРRM Testing for conformance to functional standards is beyond the scopeMќях_T@Y@PK of this Recommendation. However it is recognized that conformanceKџяхU A tests for functional standards can be derived from thisA©ях[ІІІG Recommendation and the associated Test Specification Manuals.GЈяхІІІ  аях] I It should be A a well chosen subset of tests of the virtually infiniteA©ях_ K number of tests needed to guarantee full compliance to a protocolKџях_ K standard. The subset is chosen in such a way that it gives a highKџях\ H level of confidence that tested implementations will interworkHўях] I while taking into account pragmatic considerations such as timeIЎях9 % taken to perfoмях^ЄHJ The scope and intention of this Recommendation is different fromJ яхaO M other CCITT Recommendations which define communication services andMќях] I protocols such as the 1984 X.400-Series of Recommendations. TheIЎях` L purpose of the latter Recommendations is to unambiguously define aLћях_ K system. However a Recommendation for conformance testing providesKџяхUnsure a high degree ofA©ях^ J interoperability of their equipment. This purpose is achieved byJ яхX D having a set of X.400 conformance test specifications. TheD¦яхZ F successful joint execution of the test specifications by twoF¤ях[ G implementations can be accepted as compelling evidence of theGЈяхV B complete and correct operation of these implementations.BЁях Conformance testing of the semantics and syntax of the actual bodyLћяхa M part information carried in a BODY PART is beyond the scope of thisMќях'ЄH document.ЧяхO   аях\ H The purpose of this Recommendation is to minimize the time andHўях_ K expense that manufacturers of X.400 implementations and providersKџяхU A of X.400 services must incur to e^ J Reliable Transfer Server (RTS) correctly uses the layers beneathJ ях!  it. Эях   аях^ J The tests defined in this document apply to inter-domain workingJ ях` L (ADMD to ADMD and ADMD to PRMD). They relate to any MTA or UA in aLћяхU A domain that supports communications with other domains.A©ях   аях` L this RecommendationJ ях6ІІІ" they are not part of it."ИяхІІІ  аях` L While the complete and correct operation of session, transport andLћяхZ F other lower-layer protocols is required for interworking theF¤яхa;OM testing of these layers is not in the scope of this Recommendation.Mќях_ K On the other hand, X.400 conformance tests should verify that theKџяхTesting Specification Manuals associated with thisHўях-  Recommendation:Сях   аяхW C - Conformance Testing Specification Manual for IPMS(P2)C§яхV B - Conformance Testing Specification Manual for MTS(P1)BЁяхR¦TLРR> - Conformance Testing Specification Manual for RTS>¬яхT@Y@P  аях^ J Even though these Manuals are referred to byApplication,ѕяхЄH  аях` L The message handling protocols in the scope of this RecommendationLћях` L are contained in the 1984 X.400-Series of Recommendations togetherLћяхT @ with the X.400 series Implementor's Guide (version 5).@Єях   аях_ K Abstract test specifications for these are contained in the CCITTKџях\ H Conformance K This Recommendation describes the test methods, test criteria andKџях] I test notation to be used for the conformance testing of messageIЎях` L handling systems based on the 1984 X.400 series of RecommendationsLћяхU A as supplemented by the X.400-Series Implementor's GuideA©ях*  (version 5).Фях   аях@ , 1. Scope and Field of ures/»ях мях4  Annex A Test Notation Кях мях> * Annex B IPMS(P2) PICS Proformas*Аях мях=¦TLРR) Annex C MTS(P1) PICS Proformas)БяхT@Y@Pмях9 % Annex D RTS PICS Proformas%ЕяхІІІмяхІІІмях   аях.  0. IntroductionРях;O  аях_wФях мях: & 7. Conformance requirements&Дях мях5 ! 8. Testing methodology!Йях мях:ЄH& 9. Structure of test suites&ДяхO мяхL 8 10. Information to be supplied by implementors8Іях мях/  11. Test NotationПях мяхC / 12. Conformance Assessment Proced   аях.¦TLРR 0. IntroductionРяхT@Y@Pмях@ , 1. Scope and Field of Application,ѕяхІІІмях,ІІІ 2. ReferencesТях мях-  3. DefinitionsСях;Oмях/  4. AbbreviationsПях мях-  5. ConventionsСях мях*  6. Overvie ! Systems;!Йях%ЄH Щях]O I (3) that this Recommendation describes the scope andIЎях_ K content of CCITT Conformance Testing SpecificationKџяхR > Manuals for Message Handling Systems.>¬ях%  Щях;Oмях@ ( CONTENTS ѕях unanimously declares'Гях%  Щях[ G (1) that this Recommendation describes the testingGЈяхV B methodology for Message Handling Systems;BЁях%  Щях_ K (2) that this Recommendation describes a notation usedKџях_ K to define test specifications for Message HandlingKџях5Handling Systems;2ёях%  ЩяхZІІІF (d) that the X.400-Series Recommendations specifyF¤яхFІІІ2 Message Handling Systems;2ёях%  Щях` L (e) the state-of-the-art of OSI testing methodology andLћяхG;O3 notation within CCITT-ISO,3·ях%  Щях; ' х 2 ияхS ? (a) the need for Message Handling Systems;?«ях%  Щях_ K (b) the need to ensure the interoperability of MessageKџях> * Handling Systems;*Аях%  Щях`¦TLРRL (c) the need for conformance testing specifications forLћяхFT@Y@P2 Message