I haven't changed section 2.2 since 11.14.2003.... Are you referring to the
words in section 3.2?
The words in 2.2 are that way because there could be MOWS and other domain
capabilities that have nothing to do with any of the MUWS capabilities. Volume
management, for example. I may use just volume management capability without
being concerned with MUWS for that matter.
-----Original Message----- From: John DeCarlo
[mailto:jdecarlo@mitre.org] Sent: Thu 3/4/2004 11:52 AM
To: WSDM TC Cc: Subject: [wsdm] [MOWS Spec]
Optional Dependency on MUWS
Hello,
I am a bit concerned about the wording of
Section 2.2.
It would be nice to have some discussion on how optional
we want the basic MUWS manageability capabilities to be.
The new
words Igor put into the 2 March version are good examples, but end up
leaving the door open to it being completely optional whether to use MUWS
or not.
If we want to allow a particular domain to replace something in
MUWS with something specific to their domain (say, a domain doesn't like
the MUWS Resource States and replaces with their own Resource States),
we need to be prescriptive on how to do
so.
Thanks.
--
John DeCarlo, The MITRE Corporation, My
Views Are My Own email:
jdecarlo@mitre.org voice:
703-883-7116 fax:
703-883-3383 DISA cube: 703-882-0593
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/wsdm/members/leave_workgroup.php.
|