RE: [wsrm] [REL-49]proposal for REL-49

[Jacques Durand <JDurand@fsw.fujitsu.com>]

Sunil:

-----Original Message-----
From: Sunil Kunisetty [mailto:Sunil.Kunisetty@oracle.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 11:54 AM
To: Jacques Durand
Cc: wsrm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsrm] [REL-49]proposal for REL-49

 
 Hi Jacque, 
   My assumption was that  the absence of this attribute does automatically imply usage="optional"
 since the presence of this (ServiceConfig) extensibility element itself indicate that Service will support
 RM capabilities. Having said that, I'm okay with adding "optional" as another value of this attribute.
[Jacques Durand] I see. I still prefer to encourage the explicit value "optional" (which could still be the default). 

 So I'll clarify the scoping rules and will add this attribute to all the 3 sub-elements.

 Btw, we haven't finally decided at the F2F whether we wanted this to be normative or non-normative.
 What's your take on this?
[Jacques Durand] non-normative seems more appropriate for now I think, unless we are sure to get everything right... (WS definitions won't be easily changeable after)

 -Sunil