ETSI ETS 300 374-9 ed.1 (1998-02)

SLOVENSKI STANDARD
01-oktober-1998
Inteligentno omrežje (IN) - Prvi nabor zmožnosti (CS1) inteligentnega omrežja -
Jedrni aplikacijski protokol inteligentnega omrežja (INAP) - 9. del: Zgradba
preskušalnega niza in namena preskušanja (TSS&TP) - Specifikacija vmesnika
med funkcijo krmiljenja storitev (SCF) in funkcijo preklapljanja storitev (SSF) ter
med funkcijo krmiljenja storitev (SCF) in funkcijo posebnih virov (SRF)
Intelligent Network (IN); Intelligent Network Capability Set 1 (CS1); Core Intelligent
Network Application Protocol (INAP); Part 9: Test Suite Structure and Test Purposes
(TSS&TP) specification for the Service Control Function (SCF) to Service Switching
Function and the SCF to Specialized Resource Function (SRF) interfaces
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: ETS 300 374-9 Edition 1
ICS:
33.040.35 Telefonska omrežja Telephone networks
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.

EUROPEAN ETS 300 374-9
TELECOMMUNICATION February 1998
STANDARD
Source: SPS Reference: DE/SPS-03032-5
ICS: 33.020
Key words: IN, INAP, protocol, CS1, TSS&TP, testing
Intelligent Network (IN);
Intelligent Network Capability Set 1 (CS1);
Core Intelligent Network Application Protocol (INAP);
Part 9: Test Suite Structure and Test Purposes (TSS&TP)
specification for the Service Control Function (SCF) to
Service Switching Function (SSF) and the SCF to
Specialized Resource Function (SRF) interfaces
ETSI
European Telecommunications Standards Institute
ETSI Secretariat
Postal address: F-06921 Sophia Antipolis CEDEX - FRANCE
Office address: 650 Route des Lucioles - Sophia Antipolis - Valbonne - FRANCE
X.400: c=fr, a=atlas, p=etsi, s=secretariat - Internet: secretariat@etsi.fr
Tel.: +33 4 92 94 42 00 - Fax: +33 4 93 65 47 16
Copyright Notification: No part may be reproduced except as authorized by written permission. The copyright and the
foregoing restriction extend to reproduction in all media.
© European Telecommunications Standards Institute 1998. All rights reserved.

Page 2
ETS 300 374-9: February 1998
Whilst every care has been taken in the preparation and publication of this document, errors in content,
typographical or otherwise, may occur. If you have comments concerning its accuracy, please write to
"ETSI Editing and Committee Support Dept." at the address shown on the title page.

Page 3
ETS 300 374-9: February 1998
Contents
Foreword .7
Introduction.8
1 Scope .9
2 Normative references.9
3 Definitions and abbreviations .9
3.1 Definitions .9
3.2 Abbreviations .9
4 Test Suite Structure (TSS) .10
4.1 Test Groups .10
4.1.1 Interface Groups.10
4.1.1.1 Basic SCF (bC).10
4.1.1.2 SCF-SSF relay handling (rC).11
4.1.1.3 SCF assist with relay handling (aC).11
4.1.1.4 SCF direct path IP handling (pC).11
4.1.2 Main Test Groups.11
4.1.2.1 Basic interconnection tests (BIT).11
4.1.2.2 Capability tests (CA) .11
4.1.2.3 Valid behaviour tests (BV) .11
4.1.2.4 Invalid behaviour tests (BI) .12
4.1.2.5 Inopportune behaviour tests (BO) .12
4.1.3 State Groups .12
4.2 Physical scenarios .12
4.3 Overview .14
4.4 Timers of ATS.15
5 Test Purposes (TP).17
5.1 Test purpose naming convention.17
5.2 Test purposes .19
5.2.1 General description of the test methodology.19
5.2.2 Basic SCF (bC) .20
5.2.2.1 Basic Interconnection Test (BIT) .20
5.2.2.1.1 State Idle.20
5.2.2.2 Capability (CA).20
5.2.2.3 Valid Behaviour (BV) .20
5.2.2.3.1 State Idle (State 1).20
5.2.2.3.2 State Preparing SSF Instructions
(State 2.1) .22
5.2.2.3.3 State Queuing FSM (State 2.2).26
5.2.2.3.4 State Preparing SSF Instructions
(State 2.2.1) .26
5.2.2.3.5 State Queueing (State 2.2.2) .27
5.2.2.3.6 State Waiting for notification or
request (State 2.3) .28
5.2.2.3.7 State Service filtering idle (State M3).30
5.2.2.3.8 State Waiting for SSF Service Filtering
Response (State M4).31
5.2.2.4 Invalid behaviour (BI).32
5.2.2.4.1 State Idle (State 1).32
5.2.2.4.2 State Waiting for notification or
request (State 2.3) .32
5.2.2.5 Inopportune behaviour (BO) .33
5.2.2.5.1 State Idle (State 1).33

Page 4
ETS 300 374-9: February 1998
5.2.2.5.2 State Preparing SSF instructions
(State 2.1). 33
5.2.2.5.3 State Waiting for notification or
request (State 2.3) . 33
5.2.3 SCF-SSF relay handling (rC). 34
5.2.3.1 Valid behaviour (VB) . 34
5.2.3.1.1 State Determine Mode (State 3.1) . 34
5.2.3.1.2 State Waiting for Response from the
SRF (State 4.1) . 36
5.2.3.2 Invalid behaviour (BI) . 37
5.2.3.3 Inopportune behaviour (BO). 37
5.2.3.3.1 State Determine Mode (State 3.1) . 37
5.2.3.3.2 State Waiting for response from the
SRF (State 4.1) . 38
5.2.4 SCF assist with relay handling (aC). 38
5.2.4.1 Valid behaviour (VB) . 38
5.2.4.1.1 State Determine Mode (State 3.1),
hand-off . 38
5.2.4.1.2 State Idle (State 1), hand-off . 38
5.2.4.1.3 State Determine Mode (State 3.1) . 39
5.2.4.1.4 State Waiting for Assist Request
Instructions (State 3.2) . 40
5.2.4.2 Invalid behaviour (BI) . 41
5.2.4.2.1 State Idle (State 1), hand-off . 41
5.2.4.2.2 State Waiting for Assist Request
Instructions (State 3.2) . 42
5.2.4.3 Inopportune behaviour (BO). 42
5.2.4.3.1 State Waiting for Assist Request
Instructions (State 3.2) . 42
5.2.5 SCF direct path IP handling (pC). 43
5.2.5.1 Valid behaviour (BV) . 43
5.2.5.1.1 State Determine Mode (State 3.1) . 43
5.2.5.1.2 State Waiting for Assist Request
Instructions (State 3.2) . 43
5.2.5.1.3 State Waiting for Response from the
SRF (State 4.1) . 44
5.2.5.2 Invalid behaviour (BI) . 47
5.2.5.2.1 State Waiting for Assist Request
Instructions (State 3.2) . 47
5.2.5.3 Inopportune behaviour (BO). 48
5.2.5.3.1 State Waiting for Response from the
SRF (State 4.1) . 48
Annex A (normative): Service logic control values . 49
Annex B (informative): Global Service Logic (GSL) . 61
B.1 Test_GSL_001. 61
B.2 Test_GSL_002. 62
B.3 Test_GSL_003. 62
B.4 Test_GSL_004. 62
B.5 Test_GSL_005. 63
B.6 Test_GSL_006. 63
B.7 Test_GSL_007. 63
B.8 Test_GSL_008. 64

Page 5
ETS 300 374-9: February 1998
B.9 Test_GSL_009 .64
B.10 Test_GSL_010 .64
B.11 Test_GSL_011 .65
B.12 Test_GSL_012 .65
B.13 Test_GSL_013 .65
B.14 Test_GSL_014 .66
B.15 Test_GSL_015 .66
B.16 Test_GSL_016 .66
B.17 Test_GSL_017 .67
B.18 Test_GSL_018 .67
B.19 Test_GSL_019 .67
B.20 Test_GSL_020 .68
B.21 Test_GSL_021 .68
B.22 Test_GSL_022 .68
B.23 Test_GSL_023 .69
B.24 Test_GSL_024 .69
B.25 Test_GSL_025 .69
B.26 Test_GSL_026 .70
B.27 Test_GSL_027 .70
B.28 Test_GSL_028 .70
B.29 Test_GSL_029 .71
B.30 Test_GSL_030 .71
B.31 Test_GSL_031 .71
B.32 Test_GSL_032 .72
B.33 Test_GSL_033 .72
B.34 Test_GSL_034 .72
B.35 Test_GSL_035 .73
B.36 Test_GSL_036 .73
B.37 Test_GSL_037 .73
B.38 Test_GSL_038 .74
B.39 Test_GSL_039 .74

Page 6
ETS 300 374-9: February 1998
B.40 Test_GSL_040. 75
B.41 Test_GSL_041. 75
B.42 Test_GSL_042. 76
B.43 Test_GSL_043. 76
B.44 Test_GSL_044. 77
B.45 Test_GSL_045. 78
B.46 Test_GSL_046. 78
B.47 Test_GSL_047. 79
B.48 Non-covered TPs. 79
Annex C (informative): Test methods. 80
C.1 Introduction. 80
C.2 Test Methods. 80
C.2.1 Selection of Abstract Test Method(s). 80
C.2.2 The Distributed Test Method. 80
C.2.2.1 Principle . 80
C.2.2.2 Lower Tester. 81
C.2.2.3 Upper Tester. 81
C.2.2.4 Test Coordination Procedures. 82
C.2.2.5 Advantages/Disadvantages . 83
C.2.3 The Remote Test Method . 83
C.2.3.1 Principle . 83
C.2.3.2 Lower Tester. 83
C.2.3.3 Upper Tester. 83
C.2.3.4 Test Coordination Procedures. 84
C.2.3.5 Advantages/Disadvantages . 84
C.2.3.6 Open Issues. 84
C.2.4 Advantages/disadvantages of both methods . 85
History. 86

Page 7
ETS 300 374-9: February 1998
Foreword
This European Telecommunication Standard (ETS) has been produced by the Signalling Protocols and
Switching (SPS) Technical Committee of the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI).
This ETS is part 9 of a multi-part standard covering the Capability Set 1 (CS1) core Intelligent Network
Application Protocol (INAP) as described below:
Part 1: "Protocol specification";
Part 2: "Protocol Implementation Conformance Statement (PICS) proforma specification for Service
Switching Function (SSF), Specialized Resource Function (SRF) and Service Control
Function (SCF)";
Part 3: "Test Suite Structure and Test Purposes (TSS&TP) specification for Service Switching
Function (SSF) and Specialized Resource Function (SRF)";
Part 4: "Abstract Test Suite (ATS) and partial Protocol Implementation eXtra Information for Testing
(PIXIT) proforma specification for Service Switching Function (SSF) and Specialized
Resource Function (SRF)";
Part 5: "Protocol specification for the Service Control Function (SCF) - Service Data Function (SDF)
interface";
Part 6: "Protocol Implementation Conformance Statement proforma specification for the Service
Control Function (SCF) - Service Data Function (SDF) interface";
Part 9: "Test Suite Structure and Test Purposes (TSS&TP) specification for the Service
Control Function (SCF) to Service Switching Function (SSF) and the SCF to
Specialized Resource Function (SRF) interface."
NOTE: Parts 7 and 8 are currently not planned.
Transposition dates
Date of adoption of this ETS: 6 February 1998
Date of latest announcement of this ETS (doa): 31 May 1998
Date of latest publication of new National Standard
or endorsement of this ETS (dop/e): 30 November 1998
Date of withdrawal of any conflicting National Standard (dow): 30 November 1998

Page 8
ETS 300 374-9: February 1998
Introduction
In order to be able to perform conformance testing for the core INAP SCF-SSF and SCF-SRF interfaces,
a test suite needs to be available, giving detailed and unambiguous test cases that can be used for the
conformance test campaign.
Before any test suite can be developed, it needs to be known which functional aspects needs to be tested,
and what is the structure of the test suite. This ETS contains the test purposes and the test suite structure.
For testing core INAP SCF-SSF and SCF-SRF interfaces some kind of test functionality needs to be
available that replaces the normal Service Logic and that configures the SCF’s behaviour in a desired and
predictable way. This test functionality may be implemented in various ways like a test responder or by
creating a test service using Global Service Logic. In order to assist the implementors of such test
functionality, examples are given of the latter possibility in annex B.
The test purposes in this ETS use a particular field of an operation to "trigger" the SCF to perform a
particular behaviour e.g. to issue an operation to the SSF. The field "calledPartyNumber" of the "InitialDP"
operation shall be used for this purpose.
Clause 1 defines the scope in which this ETS can be placed. In clause 2 the references to other relevant
literature are given followed by a list of definitions and abbreviations in clause 3.
In clause 4 the Test Suite Structure is described. This includes a description of all defined branches in the
Test Suite Structure as well as an overview of the possible physical scenarios on which the Test Purposes
are based.
Clause 5 contains all the Test Purposes, each one consisting of a preamble, the actual test purpose, and
a postamble.
In annex A a list is given of all values for the calledPartyNumber field of the InitialDP operation that are
used to remotely control the behaviour of the test functionality that replaces the normal Service Logic.
Annex B gives examples of how the needed test functionality at the Service Logic side of the SCF can be
implemented using Service Logic building blocks.
Finally, annex C gives an overview of possible Abstract Test Methods that can be used to execute the test
cases derived from the Test Purposes as described in this ETS.
Annex A is a normative annex that needs to be used by implementors of an Abstract Test Case while
annex B and annex C informative only. The contents of annex B and C are rather meant to advise than to
restrict the users of the ETS.

Page 9
ETS 300 374-9: February 1998
1 Scope
This European Telecommunication Standard (ETS) specifies the Test Suite Structure and Test Purposes
(TSS&TP) for the Service Control Function (SCF) to Service Switching Function (SSF) and the SCF to
Specialized Resource Function (SRF) interfaces of the core Intelligent Network Application Protocol
(INAP) Capability Set 1 (CS1) according to ETS 300 374-1 [1].
ISO/IEC 9646-1 [3] and ISO/IEC 9646-2 [4] are used as the basis for the test methodology.
2 Normative references
This ETS incorporates by dated and undated reference, provisions from other publications. These
normative references are cited at the appropriate places in the text and the publications are listed
hereafter. For dated references, subsequent amendments to or revisions of any of these publications
apply to this ETS only when incorporated in it by amendment or revision. For undated references the latest
edition of the publication referred to applies.
[1] ETS 300 374-1 (1994): "Intelligent Network (IN); Intelligent Network Capability
Set 1 (CS1); Core Intelligent Network Application Protocol (INAP); Part 1:
Protocol specification".
[2] ETS 300 374-2 (1996): "Intelligent Network (IN); Intelligent Network Capability
Set 1 (CS1); Core Intelligent Network Application Protocol (INAP); Part 2:
Protocol Implementation Conformance Statement (PICS) proforma specification
for Service Switching Function (SSF), Specialized Resource Function (SRF) and
Service Control Function (SCF)".
[3] ISO/IEC 9646-1: "Information technology - Open Systems Interconnection -
Conformance Testing Methodology and Framework - Part 1: General concepts".
[4] ISO/IEC 9646-2: "Information technology - Open Systems Interconnection -
Conformance Testing Methodology and Framework - Part 2: Abstract Test Suite
Specification".
3 Definitions and abbreviations
3.1 Definitions
For the definitions of Implementation Under Test (IUT), System Under Test (SUT), Abstract Test Suite
(ATS) and Protocol Implementation Conformance Statement (PICS) refer to ISO/IEC 9646-1 [3].
3.2 Abbreviations
For the purposes of this ETS, the following abbreviations apply:
aC SCF assist with relay handling
ATM Abstract Test Method
ATS Abstract Test Suite
bC Basic SCF
BI Invalid Behaviour test
BIT Basic Interconnection Test
BO inOpportune Behaviour test
BV Valid Behaviour test
CA CApability test
EDP-N Event Detection Point - Notification
EDP-R Event Detection Point - Request
ETS European Telecommunication Standard
FE Functional Entity
FSM Finite State Machine
GSL Global Service Logic
IN Intelligent Network
INAP Intelligent Network Application Protocol

Page 10
ETS 300 374-9: February 1998
IP Intelligent Peripheral
ISO International Standard Organisation
IUT Implementation Under Test
LT Lower Tester
pC SCF direct path IP handling
PCO Point of Control and Observation
PDU Protocol Data Unit
PICS Protocol Implementation Conformance Statement
rC SCF-SSF relay handling
SCF Service Control Functions
SCME Service Control Management Entity
SCP Service Control Point
SDF Service Data Function
SDP Service Data Point
SL Service Logic
SRF Specialized Resource Function
SSF Service Switching Function
SSP Service Switching Point
SUT System Under Test
TCAP Transaction Capabilities Application Part
TMP Test Management Protocol
TP Test Purpose
TSS Test Suite Structure
UT Upper Tester
4 Test Suite Structure (TSS)
4.1 Test Groups
4.1.1 Interface Groups
In the test suite structure 4 interface groups shall be used that are described in the following subclauses.
4.1.1.1 Basic SCF (bC)
Regarding ETS 300 374-1 [1], clauses 7, 8, 9 and 10, the defined test purposes cover the INAP
procedures at the SCP for the basic functions. The basic functions (bC) are the INAP procedures at the
SCP for the following operations:
- ActivateServiceFiltering
- ActivityTest
- ApplyCharging
- ApplyChargingReport
- CallGap
- CallInformationRequest
- CallInformationReport
- CollectInformation
- Connect
- Continue
- EventNotificationCharging
- EventReportBCSM
- FurnishChargingInformation
- InitialDP
- InitiateCallAttempt
- ReleaseCall
- RequestNotificationChargingEvent
- RequestReportBCSMEvent
- ResetTimer
- SendChargingInformation
- ServiceFilteringResponse
Page 11
ETS 300 374-9: February 1998
4.1.1.2 SCF-SSF relay handling (rC)
Regarding ETS 300 374-1 [1], clauses 7, 8, 9 and 10, the defined test purposes cover the INAP
procedures at the SCP needed in addition to the basic functions (bC) for the interaction with the SSF
relay. These are the procedures for the following operations:
- Cancel (PlayAnnouncement, PromptAndCollectUserInformation)
- ConnectToResource
- DisconnectForwardConnection
- PlayAnnouncement
- PrompAndCollectUserInformation
- SpecializedResourceReport
4.1.1.3 SCF assist with relay handling (aC)
Regarding ETS 300 374-1 [1], clauses 7, 8, 9 and 10, the defined test purposes cover the INAP
procedures at the SCP needed in addition to the basic functions (bC) and the relay functions (rC) for the
interaction with the assisting SSF with relay handling. These are the procedures for the following
operations:
- AssistRequestInstructions;
- EstablishTemporaryConnection.
4.1.1.4 SCF direct path IP handling (pC)
Regarding ETS 300 374-1 [1], clauses 7, 8, 9 and 10, the defined test purposes cover the INAP
procedures at the SCP needed in addition to the basic functions (bC) for the interaction with the IP in case
of a direct path. These are the procedures for the following operations:
- AssistRequestInstructions
- Cancel
- DisconnectForwardConnection
- EstablishTemporaryConnection
- PlayAnnouncement
- PromptAndCollectUserInformation
- SpecializedResourceReport
4.1.2 Main Test Groups
For each interface group the test suite structure is subdivided into main test groups. Each main test group
contains test cases which test the IUT’s capabilities, valid behaviour, invalid behaviour and inopportune
behaviour respectively as described in the following subclauses.
4.1.2.1 Basic interconnection tests (BIT)
Basic interconnection tests form the basis of the other tests in the test suite and therefore have to be
executed previously to all the other tests. The tests assure that the IUT provides the basic functionality to
set up connections that shall be used in the rest of the test suite.
4.1.2.2 Capability tests (CA)
Capability testing provides a limited testing to ascertain the capabilities stated in the PICS can be
observed.
4.1.2.3 Valid behaviour tests (BV)
State transitions as defined in ETS 300 374-1 [1] are considered valid. The test purposes in the valid
behaviour test group cover the verification of the procedures of the SCF-FSM and the SCME-FSM.
The messages and their contents offered to the IUT are syntactically and semantically valid.

Page 12
ETS 300 374-9: February 1998
4.1.2.4 Invalid behaviour tests (BI)
The test purposes in this test group verify that the IUT reacts correctly on receiving messages that are
syntactically incorrect.
4.1.2.5 Inopportune behaviour tests (BO)
The test purposes in this test group verify that the IUT reacts correctly in the case inopportune protocol
events occur. Such events are syntactically correct but occur when not expected.
4.1.3 State Groups
The test cases in every main test group shall be divided into state groups depending on which state in the
SCF FSM or SCME FSM is tested. Within such a state group another hierarchy exists that divides the test
cases depending on the kind of event that is issued to the IUT just before to the last event of a test
purpose on which the test verdict shall be based. The following four classes of events are distinguished:
Network event: TCAP message has to be issued to the IUT to perform the test case.
Operation: operation has to be issued to the IUT to perform the test case.
Operation error: message containing an operation error has to be issued to the IUT to perform
the test case.
SL-event: Service Logic event has to be issued to the IUT to perform the test case.
When mentioning operations INAP operations are referred to and operation errors are error messages
that are issued due to reception of a syntactically or semantically erroneous INAP operation. The events
issued to the IUT by the Service Logic are called SL-events.
4.2 Physical scenarios
The test suite structure is based on the mapping of functional entities (FE) to physical entities (PE) given
in table 1. In the table the following abbreviations are used:
O Optional;
M Mandatory;
N/A Not Applicable.
Table 1: Mapping FE to PE
FE
PE SRF SSF SCF SDF
SSP O M N/A N/A
N/A N/A M O
SCP
SDP N/A N/A N/A M
IP M N/A N/A N/A
The application of the test suite according to subclause 4.1 depends on the physical scenario in which the
SCP exists. For a number of different example physical scenarios the application of the test suite is given
in the figures 1 to 4, shown below.

Page 13
ETS 300 374-9: February 1998
SCP
SDF
SCF
SSP
IP
SSF
SRF
CCF
Figure 1: Example for SCP with single SSP and (non)integrated SRF
Applied test suite groups for SCP testing in physical scenario as in figure 1: bC + rC.
SCP
SDF
SCF
SSP
IP
SSF
SRF
CCF
Figure 2: Example for direct path SCP - IP
Applied test suite groups for SCP testing in physical scenario as shown in figure 2: bC + pC.
SCP
SDF
SCF
assisting
initiating
SSP
SSP
IP
SSF SSF
SRF
CCF
CCF
Figure 3: Example for SCP with an initiating and an assisting SSP
Applied test suite groups for SCP testing: bC + aC + rC.

Page 14
ETS 300 374-9: February 1998
SCP
SDF
SCF
initiating
SSP
IP
IP
SSF
SRF
SRF
CCF
Figure 4: Example for SCP with initiating SSP with relay
Applied test suite groups for SCP testing: bC + rC + pC.
4.3 Overview
Table 2 shows the structure of the test suite for the SCF. The states mentioned in the column State
correspond with the state names given in ETS 300 374-1 [1].
Table 2: Test purpose classes in TSS
SUT Interface Category State Group
SCP SCF-SSF BIT State 1 Operation
bC: SCP basic functions
CA/BV State 1 Operation
SL-event
State 2.1 Operation error
SL-event
State 2.2 Network event
State 2.2.1 SL-event
State 2.2.2 Operation
SL-event
State 2.3 Operation
Operation error
State M3 SL-event
State M4 Operation
Operation error
BI State 1 Operation
State 2.3 Operation
BO State 1 Operation
State 2.1 Operation
State 2.3 Operation
SCF-SSF-SRF BV State 3.1 SL-event
rC: SSF relay
State 4.1 Network event
Operation
Return result
Operation error
SL event
BI - -
BO State 3.1 Operation
State 4.1 Operation
(continued)
Page 15
ETS 300 374-9: February 1998
Table 2 (concluded): Test purpose classes in TSS
SUT Interface Category State Group
SCF-SSF-SRF BV State 1 Operation
aC: SCF assist hand off
Operation error
State 3.1 SL-event
State 3.2 Network event
Operation
Operation error
BI State 1 Operation
State 3.2 Operation
BO State 3.2 Operation
SCF-SRF BV State 3.1 SL-event
pC: direct path IP handling
State 3.2 Network event
Operation
State 4.1 Network event
Operation
Operation error
SL-event
BI State 3.2 Operation
BO State 4.1 Operation
4.4 Timers of ATS
In this subclause the timers and counters used in the ATS shall be listed with their minimum ("min") and
maximum ("max") limits. The timer values contain some additional tolerances for delays caused by test
simulators. Therefore a bigger timer tolerance is given than defined in ETS 300 374-1 [1]:
- Minimum value of ATS timer = minimum ETS timer;
- Maximum value of ATS timer = maximum ETS timer × 1.2.
Table 3 gives the identified timers used in the ATS and the references to ETS 300 374-1 [1].
Table 3: Timer values
ETS timer name Reference to ATS timer name ATS timer value (s)
ETS 300 374-1 [1]
T not defined T (note)
SSF SSFmin
T
SSFmax
T not defined T (note)
SRF SRFmin
T
SRFmax
T not defined T (note)
SCF-SSF SCF-SSFmin
T
SCF-SSFmax
T not defined T (note)
ActTest ActTestmin
T
ActTestmax
T not defined T (note)
ASSIST/HAND-OFF ASSIST/HAND-OFFmin
T
ASSIST/HAND-OFFmax
T 6.1 T 1
asf asfmin
T
asfmax
(continued)
Page 16
ETS 300 374-9: February 1998
Table 3 (continued): Timer values
ETS timer name Reference to ATS timer name ATS timer value (s)
ETS 300 374-1 [1]
T 6.1 T 1
at atmin
T
atmax
T 6.1 T 1
ac acmin
T
acmax
T 6.1 T 1
acr acrmin
T
acrmax
T 6.1 T 1
ari arimin
T
arimax
T 6.1 T 1
cg cgmin
T
cgmax
T 6.1 T 1
cirp cirpmin
T
cirpmax
T 6.1 T 1
cirq cirqmin
T
cirqmax
T 6.1 T 1
can canmin
T
canmax
T 6.1 T 1
ci cimin
T
cimax
T 6.1 T 1
con conmin
T
conmax
T 6.1 T 1
ctr ctrmin
T
ctrmax
T 6.1 Tcuemin 1
cue
T 12
cuemax
T 6.1 T 1
dfc dfcmin
T
dfcmax
T 6.1 T 1
etc etcmin
T
etcmax
T 6.1 T 1
enc encmin
T
encmax
T 6.1 T 1
erb erbmin
T
eebmax
T 6.1 T 1
fci fcimin
T
fcimax
T 6.1 T 1
idp idpmin
T
idpmax
T 6.1 T 1
ica ica
T
ica
T 6.1 T 1
rc rcmin
T
rcmax
T 6.1 T 1
rnc rncmin
T
rncmax
T 6.1 T 1
rrb rrbmin
T
rrbmax
(continued)
Page 17
ETS 300 374-9: February 1998
Table 3 (concluded): Timer values
ETS timer name Reference to ATS timer name ATS timer value (s)
ETS 300 374-1 [1]
T 6.1 T 1
rt rtmin
T
rtmax
T 6.1 T 1
sci scimin
T
scimax
T 6.1 T 1
sfr sfrmin
T
sfrmax
T 6.1 T 1
pa pamin
T
pamax
T 6.1 T 1
pc pcmin
T
pcmax
T 6.1 T 1
srr srrmin
T
srrmax
NOTE: The value of this timer is given in ETS 300 374-2 [2].
5 Test Purposes (TP)
In this clause the necessary test purposes for testing the Core INAP SCF-SSF and SCF-SRF interfaces
are described. Every test purpose is situated in a subclause from which its type of interface, category and
starting FSM state can be derived.
Subclause 5.1 contains a naming convention. The unique identifier of each test purpose is composed
conform to this naming convention. In subclause 5.2 a short description of the test method and the test
purpose definitions are given.
5.1 Test purpose naming convention
The identifier of each TP is built according to the naming convention given below that is based on the
scheme given in ISO/IEC 9646-1 [3].
Every TP identifier is of the form:
IN
where:
indicates the type of interface:
1: SCP: Basic SCF (bC).
2: SCP: SCF-SSF relay handling (rC).
3: SCP: SCF assist with relay handling (aC).
4: SCP: SCF direct path IP handling (pC).
indicates the TP’s main test group:
1: BIT, Basic Interconnection Tests.
2: CA, capability tests.
3: BV, valid behaviour tests.
4: BI, invalid behaviour tests.
5: BO, inopportune behaviour tests.

Page 18
ETS 300 374-9: February 1998
indicates the state of the SCF FSM or SCME FSM that is the starting point of the test:
1: State 1, Idle.
2: State 2.1, Preparing SSF instructions - Preparing SSF instructions.
3: State 2.2, Preparing SSF instructions - Queuing FSM.
4: State 2.2.1, Preparing SSF instructions - Queuing FSM - Preparing SSF instructions.
5: State 2.2.2, Preparing SSF instructions - Queuing FSM - Queuing.
6: State 2.3, Preparing SSF instructions - Waiting for notification or request.
7: State 3.1, Routing to resource - Determine mode.
8: State 3.2, Routing to resource - Waiting for assist request instructions.
9: State 4.1, User interaction - Waiting for response from the SRF.
A: State 5, SDF request idle. (not used).
B: State 6, Waiting for SDF response. (not used)
C: State M3, Service filtering idle.
D: State M4, Waiting for SSF service filtering response.
indicates the group:
0: Network event.
1: Operation.
2: Return result.
3: Operation error.
4: Service Logic (SL) event.
denotes a sequential number (01-99).
EXAMPLE: An example can be an imaginary test purpose with the TP identifier IN 432199:
IN432199
Sequence number: 99
Group: Operation
State: state 2.1 Preparing SSF instructions
Main test group: BV, valid behaviour tests
Interface: SCF-SRF direct path handling

Page 19
ETS 300 374-9: February 1998
5.2 Test purposes
5.2.1 General description of the test methodology
Most of the test purposes designed for testing the Core INAP SCF-SSF and SCF-SRF interfaces rely on
the possibility to provoke a particular behaviour from the SCF. This means that the SCF shall be triggered
in such a way that an expected message is sent back to the SSF. For example, the tester may wish to
verify whether the SCF is able to issue the operation RequestReportBCSMEvent (RRBE) operation to the
SSF after having received an InitialDP operation. This requires a functionality at the Service Logic (SL)
side of the SCF to "trigger" the SCF Core INAP functionality and issue some events to the SCF which
cause the SCF to send an RRBE operation to the SSF.
It has become clear that some kind of functionality at the Service Logic side of the SCF is required that
shall enable testing. Although this functionality can be implemented in various ways (e.g. test responder,
official test service built of Service Logic building blocks), the functionality shall be referred to as Service
Logic.
The Service Logic may be some specific Service Logic i.e. a Service Logic designed for the enabling a
particular IN service, or generic Service Logic i.e. Service Logic that are designed for testing the SCF
functionality having no particular IN service in mind. All test purposes have been written having in mind the
use of a generic Service Logic. In order to provoke the desired behaviour, the SCF first receives the
InitialDP operation. In this InitialDP operation, a particular parameter shall be chosen to determine the
behaviour of the SCF in order to receive back (a) particular operation(s). For this purpose, it is mandatory
that the Core INAP interface between SCF and SSF shall support the parameter CalledPartyNumber of
the InitialDP operation.
In the test purposes the parameter CalledPartyNumber is used; the values of the parameter
CalledPartyNumber of the InitialDP operations have symbolic names (see annex A), indicating the
behaviour that shall be provoked from the SCF.
EXAMPLE: See also figure 5.
In order to provoke the SCF to send the operation RRBE to the SSF, the value
SL_RequestReportBCSMEvent shall be used for the parameter CalledPartyNumber of the InitialDP
operation.
SSF SCF
InitialDP (CalledPartyNumber=SL_RequestReportBCSMEvent)
---->
RequestReportBCSMEvent
<----
Figure 5: Example of a Message Sequence Chart
In every TP in this ETS, the values of the CalledPartyNumber parameter that has to be used shall be
mentioned in either the preamble or the test body of the TP. In order to concentrate on the
CalledPartyNumber value, the mandatory ServiceKey parameter of the InitialDP operation shall not
explicitly be mentioned in every TP. Unless explicitly mentioned otherwise, it is assumed that all InitialDP
operations contain a ServiceKey parameter with a valid value.
This ETS does not give any requirements concerning the design and implementation of the Generic
Service Logic to be used for testing. The only requirement given at this point is that the Generic Service
Logic should be able to support the provocation of the behaviour of an SCF using the CalledPartyNumber
parameter of the InitialDP operation. In annex C
...