Read RFC 2119, everyone. It's only 2 pages long. You state conformance to
RFC2119. You must understand what you are conforming to.
*************************************************************************************
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 02/12/2002 05:36:53 PM
To: Doug Bunting <dougb62@yahoo.com>, ebXML
<ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc:
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
I'm still not sure why it is not either definition and why this is not
allowed?
Section 1.1.1 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."
Our spec simply defines *reduced functionality* as an Error of
NotSupported.
I'm not sure why this change is needed?
We need to limit out discussions to essential changes.
Regards,
David