[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [OASIS Issue Tracker] Updated: (CAMP-113) 4.3.2.1 campVersion - SHALL?
[ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CAMP-113?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Martin Chapman updated CAMP-113:
---------------------------------
Proposal:
Accept patrick's suggestion as modified below:
change 4.3.2.1 from:
The value of this node expresses the version of the CAMP specification to which the Plan conforms. This value SHALL be the Specification Version String of the CAMP specification to which this Plan conforms. [PLAN-04]
For Plans that conform to this document, the value of this node SHALL be "CAMP 1.1" as defined in Section 1.8 "Specification Version". [PLAN-05]
to:
The value of this node expresses the version of the CAMP specification to which the Deployment Plan conforms.
For Plans that conform to this document, the value of this node SHALL be as defined in Section 1.8 "Specification Version". [PLAN-05]
[ed note: do we need to make the following a normatve statement in 1.8?:
"The Specification Version String for this specification is "CAMP 1.1".]
> 4.3.2.1 campVersion - SHALL?
> ----------------------------
>
> Key: CAMP-113
> URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CAMP-113
> Project: OASIS Cloud Application Management for Platforms (CAMP) TC
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Public Review
> Reporter: Martin Chapman
>
> this is from: https://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/TAB-88
> The text of this attribute now reads:
> *****
> The value of this node expresses the version of the CAMP specification to which the Deployment Plan conforms. This value SHALL be the Specification Version String of the CAMP specification to which this Deployment Plan conforms. [PDP-18]
> For Deployment Plans that conform to this document, the value of this node SHALL be "CAMP 1.1" as defined in Section Error! Reference source not found. "Specification Version". [PDP-19]
> *****
> I am not certain what the two SHALL requirements gain here? The first sentence captures the legitimate data value of this attribute. If it doesn't have that value, missing or some improper value, "CAMP 25" or some such, then it fails to meet the definition of the attribute, which should make it non-conforming.
> Or to put it another way, saying SHALL never guarantees that an application or file will in fact conform. It isn't self-executing. There has to be some test of the condition.
> I would just use the first sentence:
> "The value of this node expresses the version of the CAMP specification to which the Deployment Plan conforms."
> And then a note to say:
> Note: The value for this version of CAMP is: "CAMP 1.1." 1.7 Specification Version (that last bit as a hyperlink)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]