[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-caf] ws-caf draft minutes
All, I had thought the discussion around the conformance clause was amended twice (not once). In particular, I believe my second proposal (deleting "and protocols" from paragraph 4 as it was numbered in Greg's email) was successful; it passed without objection. Certainly, as shown below, my last proposal (distinction between implementations that must implement and those that just use) failed. All together, we need some text between "Jeff: seconds" and the following discussion describing the fate of that separate proposal. The "(once)" near the end of the snippet below should read "(twice)". thanx, doug On 13-Sep-04 09:20, Furniss, Peter wrote: ... > Doug: in the light of the discussion, proposes deleting para 3 > 2nded: Eric > > Jeff: what was the intent ? the words don't quite capture it - what > would we lose > by deletion > > Greg: intent was to disallow meaningless garbage, but perhaps that's > not quite > a conformance claim. Have to use identifiable addressing schemes > (long discussion > on this in section 2) > > This is generally covered in section 2 > > Martin: any objections: none, > amendment passes > > Doug: on (original) para 4: what exactly is a protocol in "systems > and protocols" - > should that be "systems and referencing specification". > > anyone can do anything with the pass-by-reference must implement the > ctx mgr, which is > too strong > > Jeff: but a ref spec isn't an implementation > > Tony: in another forum, they distinguished implementations > conforming and specifications > complying > > Peter: that was a bit silly really > > Doug: questions his own amendment ! > clarifies : delete "and protocols" from para 4 > Jeff: seconds > > Doug: that paragraph now says pass-by-reference use means must implement > the context mgr, but really it only needs to support either offering > the > service or interacting with it. > > Martin: only the thing passing out the context needs to implement > the mgr service > > Doug: wishes to clarify the distinction between implementations that > must > implement and those that just use > Proposes text to that effect, Peter seconds > > Peter: the text would appear to say any system using pass-by-ref > must offer the Ctx mgr > service, though it clearly doesn't need to > > general disagreement that it could be so interpreted > > > Voice vote: 6 for , 8 against, 1 abstain > amendment fails > > The main motion was taken, as amended (once) - > > Passed, no objections ...
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]