So you are saying that it is OK for a software vendor to decide not to
implement the ROLE element. Then each vendor has to supply a catalog
stating which OPTIONAL elements he/she does not provide. A customer has to
check every vendor's catalog to make sure that the OPTIONAL elements that
the customer requires are supported. What if next month, the same customer
discovers that he/she needs one more element that the newly purchased
software doesn't support?
Of course I can't believe that that is what you really mean. However a
vendor that understands RFC2119 will interpret the MSG spec in exactly that
way, Use of OPTIONAL for a purpose other than to indicate that a vendor
doesn't have to support this particular major feature can lead to an
interoperability disaster. One can eliminate the words OPTIONAL and MAY
without changing any syntax or semantics.
Regards,
Marty
*************************************************************************************
Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************
David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com> on 02/14/2002 12:08:25 AM
To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>, ebXML
<ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
Marty, I don't disagree with your premise. We do need to avoid the word
OPTIONAL unless that is really what we mean.
Doug/Chris' Issue 15 concerns OPTIONAL in relation to the Role element. At
the
bottom of the issue, it also says there are other instances...
I just went through the document again and I don't disagree with any of the
instances where we use OPTIONAL. Ping/Pong (w/ or w/o signature), Message
Status, MessageOrder are all truly OPTIONAL items for implementers. The
only
one I'm not sure about concerns Transfer Encoding on HTTP (I'm too lazy to
research this at this time of night).
Outside of the definitions, we use the word *OPTIONAL* 13 times and
*optional* 3
times (twice concerning the id element -- which maybe is not truly
optional).
Perhaps the problem is in section 1.1.1 and our definition of OPTIONAL? It
says:
... An implementation which does not include a
particular option MUST be prepared to interoperate
with another implementation which does include the
option, though perhaps with reduced functionality ...
which we do by supplying the NotSupported Error.
Regards,
David.
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 10:18 PM
To: David Fischer
Cc: Christopher Ferris; ebXML
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
David,
I gave in too easily. The subject line says " Issue 15: Use of the word
OPTIONAL". The text of issue 15 is shown below. So either the subject
line is referencing the wrong issue or the discussion is about the word
"OPTIONAL" and not about the cardinality of the Role element.
Regards,
Marty
<issue>
<issue-num>15</issue-num>
<title>RFC2119 usage</title>
<locus>line 784</locus>
<section>3.1.1.2 PartyId element</section>
<priority>editorial</priority>
<topic>spec</topic>
<status>Active</status>
<originator><a href='mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com'>Chris
Ferris</a></originator>
<responsible></responsible>
<description><a href
='http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-msg/200201/msg00130.html'>[see
email]</a> use of the term OPTIONAL here may be confusing given the
conformance statement. Suggest that this be rephrased as follows: The Role
element, if present, ... (technical/editorial) Other instances of OPTIONAL
where ordinality is meant:<p/>
* 500 (MIME start parameter) * 1801, 1814 (Signature element in Message
Status Request & Response) * 1822, 1842 (StatusRequest and
StatusResponse elements; really, the service is OPTIONAL) * 1905, 1955
(Signature element in Ping & Pong)</description>
<proposal>make suggested change</proposal>
<resolution>Disagree.</resolution>
</issue>
********************************************************************************
*****
Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
********************************************************************************
*****
David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com> on 02/13/2002 06:29:54 PM
To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>, ebXML
<ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
Yes Marty, I understand. This issue is trying to change the Messaging
Specification functionality to REQUIRE that everyone implement Role and
allow it
to be in the message From/To zero or one time. This is NOT what we agreed
to.
I also understand this has implications for CPA, which I have already
discussed
with you on a CPA conference call.
I suppose we could ask the implementers we know of if this will mean a
change
for their code? What about implementors we don't know about? We have
already
voted not to change functionality. The point is that we added Role as
OPTIONAL
and now, after the last bell, we are trying to change.
David.
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 4:07 PM
To: David Fischer
Cc: Christopher Ferris; ebXML
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
David,
We are trying to say that "OPTIONAL" or "optional" tells a vendor that the
vendor need not implement the feature (per RFC2119). That's not what is
wanted for Role. You have to mean "optional" without saying "optional".
There aren't any really good synonyms of "optional" ("discretionary" has
been suggested). You also have to mean "optional" without saying "may"
either, for the same reason. For elements, the CPPA spec avoids "optional"
and "may" by mentioning the cardinality instead. Example: "The Role element
can be included zero or one time."
Regards,
Marty
********************************************************************************
*****
Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
********************************************************************************
*****
David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com> on 02/13/2002 04:24:26 PM
To: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
cc: ebXML <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
Chris,
When you proposed the Role element you said it was OPTIONAL and the team
agreed
to add it as OPTIONAL. When you proposed this element (see original issue
128 -- attached) you said:
Issue Add Role as an optional element within both From and To
elements. Role should be indpendently wihtin the messaging
spec with a non-normative note that describes how it
relates to the BPSS spec.
The minutes from 11-05-01 again say Role is OPTIONAL.
Why are we changing now? Role has always been OPTIONAL, let's leave it
alone.
Regards,
David.
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 2:18 PM
Cc: ebXML
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
+1
I think it critical that we leave no room for doubt
as to our intent. The Role element is not optional,
it has a cardinality of zero or one.
Cheers,
Chris
Arvola Chan wrote:
> +1.
>
> -Arvola
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Bunting <dougb62@yahoo.com>
> To: ebXML <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 2:10 PM
> Subject: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
>
>
> David has disagreed with Chris' statement that OPTIONAL is misused
> (according
> to 2119) in a number of contexts. The basic issue here is a conflict
> between
> something that may or may not appear in an instance of an ebXML message
and
> something that must or may be implemented by a compliant ebMS system. In
> the
> specified uses of the word OPTIONAL, the first is meant but our document
> conventions (section 1.1.1) restricts us to using OPTIONAL only when the
> second is intended. I would strongly recommend making the change Chris
> suggested.
>
> thanx,
> doug
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>