[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-tx] Issue 058 - definition of Referencing Specification
Ram Jeyaraman wrote: > Mark, > > Here is some analysis: > > >> One or more other specifications, such as (but not limited to) >> WS-AtomicTransaction may reference the WS-Coordination specification. >> > > No issues. > > >> Referencing Specifications are generally used to construct concrete >> protocols based on WS-Coordination. >> > > It is not clear at this time, how the various referencing specifications > may actually use and compose with the WS-Coordination specification. > > So you believe it may be used for non-coordination related tasks ;-)? I don't think we should even go down that road! >> The usage of optional items in >> WS-Coordination, or those protocol aspects where terms such as MAY or >> SHOULD are used, may be further restricted by the requirements of a >> Referencing Specification. >> > > Same as above. > > >> For the purpose of this document, the term >> Referencing Specification covers both formal specifications and more >> general applications that use WS-Coordination. >> > > Since an application is typically an implementation of a specification, > using the term Referencing specification to cover applications may cause > some confusion. > OK. Mark. > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@jboss.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 2:20 AM > To: Ram Jeyaraman > Cc: Peter Furniss; ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [ws-tx] Issue 058 - definition of Referencing Specification > > I understand and agree, but nothing in the currently proposed definition > > seems to go against what you outline: in fact, the definition was > carefully crafted to not impose any restrictions and to be a fairly > common sense based approach. Maybe you can discuss the sentences in the > paragraph (as I did in an earlier email) and illustrate specific issues > with the wording? > > Mark. > > > Ram Jeyaraman wrote: > >> Mark, >> >> When implementations go over and beyond the specification >> > requirements, > >> they carry a risk, and they should know it. They cannot come back and >> say "The specification said such and so". >> >> On the other hand, yes, specifications make general statements to set >> expectations; to provide future guidance. For example, a specification >> may generally describe how to handle a specific situation, and later >> > on, > >> in a future version, require the described behavior. But this is well >> intended and directed by the specification towards a specific outcome, >> and implementations follow it, even though it may not be a >> > requirement. > >> In this case, if the specification reverses the guidance in a future >> version, then implementers can always come back and say "Well, you >> > lead > >> me in that direction; why are you changing the specification now?" It >> becomes really hard for the specification to make changes. >> >> At this time, we do not know about other specifications (potentially >> > in > >> other standards bodies) that may compose with WS-Coordination; and we >> > do > >> not have enough data at this point to provide a concrete guidance. So, >> it is better not to say anything, until a time, we have more data on >> other compositions. >> >> So, I suggest we provide a definition for the term Referencing >> specification, as you proposed earlier: >> >> "Referencing Specification >> >> One or more other specifications, such as, but not limited to, >> WS-AtomicTransaction, that may reference the WS-Coordination >> specification." >> >> Later, when we have more data about other compositions, we can discuss >> about providing specific guidance in the specification. >> >> Thank you. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@jboss.com] >> Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 1:41 AM >> To: Ram Jeyaraman >> Cc: Peter Furniss; ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org >> Subject: Re: [ws-tx] Issue 058 - definition of Referencing >> > Specification > >> In the same way that saying nothing about something can be read by >> different vendors in different ways to imply conformance. This is a >> age-old "feature" of standards. You should know that from having >> > worked > >> on the JTA ;-) Basically: if you don't say anything then everybody can >> > > >> interpret the lack of information in their own manner and there is no >> way to prove the original intent of the authors. >> >> Mark. >> >> >> Ram Jeyaraman wrote: >> >> >>>> Precisely because we do not know what the RS will be or want to do, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> and we wish to make sure that restrictions are not implied by our >>> silence. >>> >>> How does silence imply restrictions? >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Peter Furniss [mailto:peter.furniss@erebor.co.uk] >>> Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 2:44 PM >>> To: Ram Jeyaraman; Mark Little >>> Cc: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org >>> Subject: RE: [ws-tx] Issue 058 - definition of Referencing >>> >>> >> Specification >> >> >>> Ram asks: >>> >>> "Why should a specification make such a general statement?" >>> >>> Precisely because we do not know what the RS will be or want to do, >>> >>> >> and >> >> >>> we wish to make sure that restrictions are not implied by our >>> > silence. > >>> For example, to make sure the following statements are invalid: >>> >>> - WS-C can only be used for transaction protocols >>> >>> - If <x> is optional in WS-C, an RS cannot forbid <x> when WS-C >>> is used with the RS >>> >>> - If <x> is optional in WS-C, an RS cannot require <x> when WS-C >>> is used with the RS >>> >>> - This protocol A cannot legitimately use WS-C because the >>> specification of A is proprietary and unpublished >>> >>> - This end-user application cannot use WS-C because what is >>> added to WS-C is only defined in some of the comments in the code >>> >>> Of course, if we are sure no-one would be so daft as to make any of >>> those statements, then we don't need to have the longer RS >>> > definition. > >>> But some remarkably daft statements are sometimes made about >>> > standards > >>> and having chapter and verse to contradict them can be useful. >>> >>> Peter >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ram Jeyaraman [mailto:Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com] >>> Sent: 05 May 2006 19:21 >>> To: Mark Little >>> Cc: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org >>> Subject: RE: [ws-tx] Issue 058 - definition of Referencing >>> >>> >> Specification >> >> >>> We really do not know at this point, how this affects other >>> specifications and implementations, and what the implications are. >>> >>> Why should a specification make such a general statement? >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@jboss.com] >>> Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 3:27 AM >>> To: Ram Jeyaraman >>> Cc: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org >>> Subject: Re: [ws-tx] Issue 058 - definition of Referencing >>> >>> >> Specification >> >> >>> I disagree. In fact, how much more general a definition can you get >>> >>> >> ;-)? >> >> >>> Mark. >>> >>> >>> Ram Jeyaraman wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> It is hard to anticipate how other specifications from other >>>> >>>> >> standards >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> bodies that may refer to the WS-Coordination specification are >>>> >>>> >> defined >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> and used. Further, the current WS-Coordination specification does >>>> > not > >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> preclude the possibility of referencing specifications restricting >>>> >>>> >> the >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> optional behavior described in the WS-Coordination specification. >>>> >>>> So, it is probably best not to make a statement about Referencing >>>> specifications. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ram Jeyaraman [mailto:Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 1:52 PM >>>> To: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org >>>> Subject: [ws-tx] Issue 058 - definition of Referencing Specification >>>> >>>> This is identified as WS-TX issue 058. >>>> >>>> Please ensure follow-ups have a subject line starting "Issue 058 - >>>> definition of Referencing Specification". >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@jboss.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 9:21 AM >>>> To: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org >>>> Subject: [ws-tx] NEW issue: definition of Referencing Specification >>>> >>>> NOTE: Please defer discussions on this issue until a time this issue >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> is >>> >>> >>> >>>> accepted and is assigned a number by the TC. >>>> >>>> Reference documents: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/download.php/17311/ws > >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> tx-wscoor-1.1-spec-cd-01.pdf >>>> >>>> with amendment from issue 030 >>>> >>>> Description: >>>> >>>> Text within WS-C refers to Referencing Specification. We have no >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> formal >>> >>> >>> >>>> definition of that. >>>> >>>> Resolution: >>>> >>>> One or more other specifications, such as (but not limited to) >>>> WS-AtomicTransaction may reference the WS-Coordination >>>> > specification. > >>>> Referencing Specifications are generally used to construct concrete >>>> protocols based on WS-Coordination. The usage of optional items in >>>> WS-Coordination, or those protocol aspects where terms such as MAY >>>> > or > >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> SHOULD are used, may be further restricted by the requirements of a >>>> Referencing Specification. For the purpose of this document, the >>>> >>>> >> term >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Referencing Specification covers both formal specifications and more >>>> > > >>>> general applications that use WS-Coordination. >>>> >>>> Mark. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]