11 messages in org.oasis-open.lists.wsrmRe: [wsrm] Proposed Resolution for Rel22| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Tom Rutt | Aug 27, 2003 12:58 pm | |
| iwasa | Aug 29, 2003 1:24 am | |
| iwasa | Aug 29, 2003 1:28 am | |
| iwasa | Aug 29, 2003 1:40 am | |
| iwasa | Aug 29, 2003 2:17 am | |
| Dock Allen | Aug 29, 2003 12:21 pm | |
| Doug Bunting | Aug 29, 2003 4:02 pm | |
| Martin Sachs | Aug 29, 2003 5:05 pm | |
| Iwasa | Sep 2, 2003 2:50 pm | |
| Iwasa | Sep 2, 2003 8:04 pm | |
| Iwasa | Sep 2, 2003 8:08 pm |
| Subject: | Re: [wsrm] Proposed Resolution for Rel22 | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Dock Allen (do...@mitre.org) | |
| Date: | Aug 29, 2003 12:21:09 pm | |
| List: | org.oasis-open.lists.wsrm | |
Maybe a revisit of why something might be optional:
1-save bandwidth (not very much value here)
2-backward compatibility
3-sideways compatibility (with implementations that don't support WSRM)
4-allow implementations to only support some of the features
I think we're after 2 and 3. Meaning that a non-supporting implementation will ignore the parameters on input, and will not provide them on output.
This means that 4 would be implied, but I argue against that. If you permit implementors to only support part of the specification, it becomes pretty complicated for the user (what if you are using an implementation that only supports ordering and you are talking to an implementation that only supports duplicate removal?) I don't see any benefit (from an interoperability point of view) for subsets, and they add complexity to the overall community, as well as making life really difficult for users who have mult-platform applications and vendors who need to write applications that can exist in multiple environments. So I would recommend that either you do the whole spec, or none of it.
My two cents worth
Dock Allen
iwasa wrote:
Here is a proposed resolution for Rel22:
-- REL-22 Spec meta Editorial Unassigned Tom Rutt Title: Optionality Description: The use of the term OPTIONAL needs to be revisited particularly in a specification of this nature where interoperability is an explicit goal and RFC 2119 has been referenced. [see original spec] Proposal: Go to email on this issue
--
Proposed Resolution: We inlude Conformance section in the spec. The word "OPTIONAL " in the spec means the element or attribute is optional to be in a message. But it doesn't say anything about optionality for implementation. Comformance section should mention about the optionality for implementation.
--
Any comments?
Thanks,
Iwasa
To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php.