4.2.3.2
Sharing agreement: Negotiation - Refusal or registration of sharing agreement
Assessment: Check whether the system provides a observability trace of the sharing agreement (privacy terms of observability are out of scope here).
The description of Test 4.2.3.2 was extracted from this page in the GitHub repository.
This file was last modified at 2026-06-24 15:37:50 UTC.
Information
-
Phase 1
-
Minimal? Yes
-
Related KPIs:
- Security: [Integrity] The system provides observability records of the sharing agreement states (privacy terms of observability are out of scope here).
-
Evaluation Criteria:
The evaluation for this test case uses the following matrix:
| Criteria | Scoring |
|---|---|
| No traceability. | 0 |
| System logs, which record only a connection between two connectors using non-data space identifiers such as a public URL or IP address. | 1 |
| Application logs that include process information, for example, "Connector control plane initiating on port...". | 2 |
| Data space protocol status traces, such as "Data sharing agreement request". | 3 |
| Data space protocol transaction traces, for instance, "Contract ID Op: negotiation". | 4 |
| A complete data space protocol context dump, including the entire JSON dump with references. | 5 |
Results
- Fiware
- protoEMDS Final Stack (EDC-based)
- EDC+VC
The results for Test 4.2.3.2 for Fiware were extracted from this page in the GitHub repository.
This file was last modified at 2026-06-24 15:37:50 UTC.
Environment
Because it has not been possible to carry out the deployment with all its characteristics, it has not been possible to evaluate this feature.
Tested quality metric and method
The quality metric for this test is based on the criteria outlined in iso27001_kpis_subkpis.xlsx. In Phase 1, the focus is on the Functional Suitability metric. For detailed information, please refer to the Comparative criteria (checklists, ...) section in the test description.
Measured results
Based on the criteria outlined in the Comparative criteria (checklists, ...) section of the test description, the test is assigned the following score:
Functional Suitability Quality Metric: 0
Notes
The results for Test 4.2.3.2 for protoEMDS Final Stack (EDC-based) were extracted from this page in the GitHub repository.
This file was last modified at 2026-06-24 15:37:50 UTC.
Environment
This section identifies the technical context in which the protoEMDS Final Stack assessment is performed.
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Assessment context | Integration phase assessment of the EMDS final technical infrastructure |
| Result perspective | protoemds_final_stack |
| Stack under assessment | protoEMDS Final Stack (EDC-based) |
| KPI1 area | Observability / logging |
| Existing test ID | 4.2.3.2 |
| Level | Technical |
| ISO/IEC 25010 mapping | Reliability, Maintainability |
| Owner (tentative) | Carlos (i2CAT) |
| Reviewer | Carlos |
| Deployment model assessed | TBD |
| Target environment | TBD |
| EDC version / release | TBD |
| Connector deployment reference | TBD |
| Assessment evidence | TBD |
The assessment should be completed using the deployment model for which evidence is realistically available. It is not mandatory to execute the same test in both CaaS and on-premise environments.
If only one deployment model is assessed, the other one should be marked as Not assessed.
Tested quality metric and method
This result reuses the existing stack-agnostic test definition in test.md and adds an protoEMDS Final Stack integration-assessment perspective.
It does not replace the historical stack-specific result files, such as result_edc_vc.md or result_fiware.md.
The quality metric, expected output and comparative criteria remain those defined by the original test. This result file should only capture the evidence and assessment outcome for the selected protoEMDS Final Stack deployment.
Test-specific assessment scope
Check whether the system provides a observability trace of the sharing agreement (privacy terms of observability are out of scope here).
Expected Output
The expected outcome of the current test is to evaluate whether the system provides an observability trace of the sharing agreement (privacy terms of observability are out of scope).
Results
Assessment
Pending.
The assessment should be completed once consolidated technical evidence is available for the protoEMDS Final Stack deployment.
The result should clearly indicate which deployment model was assessed. It is acceptable to assess only one deployment model if evidence for the other deployment model is not available.
Deployment model assessed
| Deployment model | Status | Evidence | Consolidated assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| CaaS / IONOS-managed deployment | TBD | TBD | Complete this row only if evidence is collected from the IONOS-managed deployment. Otherwise mark as Not assessed. |
| On-premise deployment | TBD | TBD | Complete this row only if evidence is collected from an on-premise or locally managed deployment. Otherwise mark as Not assessed. |
Measured results
| Criteria | Measured KPI | Evidence | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| No traceability. | TBD | TBD | Pending protoEMDS Final Stack assessment. |
| System logs, which record only a connection between two connectors using non-data space identifiers such as a public URL or IP address. | TBD | TBD | Pending protoEMDS Final Stack assessment. |
| Application logs that include process information, for example, "Connector control plane initiating on port...". | TBD | TBD | Pending protoEMDS Final Stack assessment. |
| Data space protocol status traces, such as "Data sharing agreement request". | TBD | TBD | Pending protoEMDS Final Stack assessment. |
| Data space protocol transaction traces, for instance, "Contract ID Op: negotiation". | TBD | TBD | Pending protoEMDS Final Stack assessment. |
| A complete data space protocol context dump, including the entire JSON dump with references. | TBD | TBD | Pending protoEMDS Final Stack assessment. |
Functional suitability quality metric: TBD
Notes
This result introduces an protoEMDS Final Stack perspective for the existing test 4.2.3.2 under the KPI1 area Observability / logging.
This result should not be interpreted as part of the original Phase 1 / Phase 2 stack-comparison campaign. It is intended as an integration phase assessment of the current EMDS final technical infrastructure.
The assessment should be completed using consolidated technical evidence, such as endpoint responses, logs, screenshots, Postman/curl executions, GitHub issues, pull requests, repository references, deployment status or confirmation from the relevant component owner.
This result file was generated from the local test.md and, where available, the local result_edc_vc.md structure. EDC+VC-specific evidence, values and scores were intentionally not reused.
The results for Test 4.2.3.2 for EDC+VC were extracted from this page in the GitHub repository.
This file was last modified at 2026-06-24 15:37:50 UTC.
Environment
- The test utilizes the EDC MVD commit 5d58b38.
- The test is executed in an Ubuntu environment using IntelliJ.
Tested quality metric and method
The quality metric for this test is based on the criteria outlined in iso27001_kpis_subkpis.xlsx. In Phase 1, the focus is on the Functional Suitability metric. For detailed information, please refer to the Comparative criteria (checklists, ...) section in the test description.
Expected output
The expected outcome of the current test is to evaluate whether the system provides an observability trace of the sharing agreement (privacy terms of observability are out of scope).
Results
When a Contract negotiation is initiated by a Consumer via an API call, such as /api/management/v3/contractnegotiations, clear traces with appropriate states are recorded in the logs of the involved connectors, for example:
Logs for ContractNegotiation a1a32534-6c1d-4875-bd48-3b2cc41da8eb on the consumer connector as follows:
DEBUG 2024-07-24T12:35:55.205642506 [ConsumerContractNegotiationManagerImpl] ContractNegotiation a1a32534-6c1d-4875-bd48-3b2cc41da8eb is now in state INITIAL
DEBUG 2024-07-24T12:35:55.470100382 [ConsumerContractNegotiationManagerImpl] ContractNegotiation a1a32534-6c1d-4875-bd48-3b2cc41da8eb is now in state REQUESTING
DEBUG 2024-07-24T12:35:55.470552694 ContractNegotiation: ID a1a32534-6c1d-4875-bd48-3b2cc41da8eb. [Consumer] send request
DEBUG 2024-07-24T12:35:55.816844368 ContractNegotiation: ID a1a32534-6c1d-4875-bd48-3b2cc41da8eb. [Consumer] send request
DEBUG 2024-07-24T12:35:55.816948427 [ConsumerContractNegotiationManagerImpl] ContractNegotiation a1a32534-6c1d-4875-bd48-3b2cc41da8eb is now in state REQUESTED
DEBUG 2024-07-24T12:35:56.503153685 DSP: Incoming ContractAgreementMessage for class org.eclipse.edc.connector.controlplane.contract.spi.types.negotiation.ContractNegotiation process: a1a32534-6c1d-4875-bd48-3b2cc41da8eb
DEBUG 2024-07-24T12:35:56.888602662 [CONSUMER] ContractNegotiation a1a32534-6c1d-4875-bd48-3b2cc41da8eb is now in state AGREED.
DEBUG 2024-07-24T12:35:57.549414156 [ConsumerContractNegotiationManagerImpl] ContractNegotiation a1a32534-6c1d-4875-bd48-3b2cc41da8eb is now in state VERIFYING
DEBUG 2024-07-24T12:35:57.549611466 ContractNegotiation: ID a1a32534-6c1d-4875-bd48-3b2cc41da8eb. [consumer] send verification
DEBUG 2024-07-24T12:35:57.838410104 ContractNegotiation: ID a1a32534-6c1d-4875-bd48-3b2cc41da8eb. [consumer] send verification
DEBUG 2024-07-24T12:35:57.838515447 [ConsumerContractNegotiationManagerImpl] ContractNegotiation a1a32534-6c1d-4875-bd48-3b2cc41da8eb is now in state VERIFIED
DEBUG 2024-07-24T12:35:58.533433993 DSP: Incoming ContractNegotiationEventMessage for class org.eclipse.edc.connector.controlplane.contract.spi.types.negotiation.ContractNegotiation process: a1a32534-6c1d-4875-bd48-3b2cc41da8eb
DEBUG 2024-07-24T12:35:58.72499179 [CONSUMER] ContractNegotiation a1a32534-6c1d-4875-bd48-3b2cc41da8eb is now in state FINALIZED.
The corresponding ContractNegotiation c4dec03e-e21f-4103-b186-6a0e8447d1fb logs in the provider connector are as follows:
DEBUG 2024-07-24T12:35:55.588913773 DSP: Incoming ContractRequestMessage for class org.eclipse.edc.connector.controlplane.contract.spi.types.negotiation.ContractNegotiation process
DEBUG 2024-07-24T12:35:55.75999992 [PROVIDER] ContractNegotiation c4dec03e-e21f-4103-b186-6a0e8447d1fb is now in state REQUESTED.
DEBUG 2024-07-24T12:35:56.30306143 [ProviderContractNegotiationManagerImpl] ContractNegotiation c4dec03e-e21f-4103-b186-6a0e8447d1fb is now in state AGREEING
DEBUG 2024-07-24T12:35:56.303415276 ContractNegotiation: ID c4dec03e-e21f-4103-b186-6a0e8447d1fb. [Provider] send agreement
DEBUG 2024-07-24T12:35:56.890075427 ContractNegotiation: ID c4dec03e-e21f-4103-b186-6a0e8447d1fb. [Provider] send agreement
DEBUG 2024-07-24T12:35:56.890262842 [ProviderContractNegotiationManagerImpl] ContractNegotiation c4dec03e-e21f-4103-b186-6a0e8447d1fb is now in state AGREED
DEBUG 2024-07-24T12:35:57.622123397 DSP: Incoming ContractAgreementVerificationMessage for class org.eclipse.edc.connector.controlplane.contract.spi.types.negotiation.ContractNegotiation process: c4dec03e-e21f-4103-b186-6a0e8447d1fb
DEBUG 2024-07-24T12:35:57.837314656 [PROVIDER] ContractNegotiation c4dec03e-e21f-4103-b186-6a0e8447d1fb is now in state VERIFIED.
DEBUG 2024-07-24T12:35:58.44331619 [ProviderContractNegotiationManagerImpl] ContractNegotiation c4dec03e-e21f-4103-b186-6a0e8447d1fb is now in state FINALIZING
DEBUG 2024-07-24T12:35:58.443776224 ContractNegotiation: ID c4dec03e-e21f-4103-b186-6a0e8447d1fb. [Provider] send finalization
DEBUG 2024-07-24T12:35:58.726042394 ContractNegotiation: ID c4dec03e-e21f-4103-b186-6a0e8447d1fb. [Provider] send finalization
DEBUG 2024-07-24T12:35:58.726205646 [ProviderContractNegotiationManagerImpl] ContractNegotiation c4dec03e-e21f-4103-b186-6a0e8447d1fb is now in state FINALIZED
Assessment
Measured results
Based on the test results, the system is rated a 4 according to the matrix outlined at Comparative criteria (checklists, ...). Given the extensible nature of EDC, you can add an extension to the logging service to achieve a higher score.
Functional suitability quality metric: 4
Notes
EDC is a pluggable ecosystem primarily targeting Java/Kotlin developers. Some extensions are available on the market for plug-and-play, but for certain specific use cases, developers need to write their own extensions.