Re: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL

[Doug Bunting <dougb62@yahoo.com>]

I think we're getting rather far from the base issue described in issue 15.  For
Role in particular, many in this group thought the element MUST be handled by a
receiving MSH but the schema described an element with ordinality of 0 or 1.
This conflicts with the current text using the 2119 OPTIONAL sense.  As Dale has
well described, we still have an issue here.

Issue 15 also calls out a general problem in the specification where elements are
described as OPTIONAL but the associated service is really what implementations
may or may not choose to include.  Correcting this terminology problem is
probably of lower priority than determining what we really want to say about the
Role element.  I propose we really want to say everybody MUST support this
element but it may appear in an instance of an ebXML message.

thanx,
    doug

David Fischer wrote:

> This is a perfect example where the RFC2119 definitions are extended within a
> single spec.
>
> Regards,
>
> David.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philippe De Smedt [mailto:pdesmedt@agentisinternational.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 1:26 PM
> To: David Fischer; Martin W Sachs
> Cc: ebXML
> Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
>
> For what it's worth, some W3C specs use the non-uppercase form. The SVG spec
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-SVG-20010904/REC-SVG-20010904.pdf), for
> instance, states:
>
> "Within this specification, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
> "SHALL", "SHALL
> NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be
> interpreted as described in RFC 2119 (see [RFC2119]). However, for
> readability, these words
> do not appear in all uppercase letters in this specification."
>
> -Philippe
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Fischer [mailto:david@drummondgroup.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 7:57 AM
> To: Martin W Sachs
> Cc: ebXML
> Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
>
> Marty, your characterization of the RFC2119 words gives me great pause.  If
> you
> were correct, then we must erase these words from our vocabulary -- which
> certainly was not the intent of the RFC.  I must strongly disagree
> concerning
> those words used in non-upper case (*must* as opposed to *MUST*).  Standard
> usage in RFCs has been strictly with ALL CAPS.  This has also been true
> throughout the development process of TRP/ebXML-MS and in all our
> discussions.
>
> However, just be sure, I went to the IETF and asked.  The answers so far
> have
> been in favor of only ALL CAPS (see attached) invoking the definitions in
> 2119.
> They do acknowledge the confusion as you have cited.  One interesting
> example
> was the word May -- the name of a month.  Should this also be an RFC2119 key
> word?
>
> I'm sorry Marty, but the 2119 definitions only apply to ALL CAPS, unless we
> define otherwise in our specification.  We have been VERY careful with these
> words and we have only used them (the ALL CAPS versions) when we really mean
> the
> 2119 definitions -- including our use of OPTIONAL.
>
> Regards,
>
> David.
>
> Note:  If more responses come in from the IETF, I will be happy to forward
> them.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 4:59 PM
> To: David Fischer
> Cc: Doug Bunting; ebXML
> Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
>
> Conformance to RFC2119 means that the word OPTIONAL (or optional) means
> that an implementer does not have to provide that which is stated as
> optional.  We don't want to confuse anyone into thinking that non-required
> elements or attributes do not have to be provided by implementers.  Don't
> assume that implementers will catch on.  The words in a specification have
> to be precise.
>
> Regards,
> Marty
>
> ****************************************************************************
> ****
> *****
>
> Martin W. Sachs
> IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
> P. O. B. 704
> Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
> 914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
> Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
> Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
> ****************************************************************************
> ****
> *****
>
> David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com> on 02/12/2002 05:36:53 PM
>
> To:    Doug Bunting <dougb62@yahoo.com>, ebXML
>        <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
> cc:
> Subject:    RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
>
> I'm still not sure why it is not either definition and why this is not
> allowed?
> Section 1.1.1 says
>
>  "An implementation which does not include a particular option MUST be
> prepared
> to interoperate with another implementation which does include the option,
> though perhaps with reduced functionality."
>
> Our spec simply defines *reduced functionality* as an Error of
> NotSupported.
> I'm not sure why this change is needed?
>
> We need to limit out discussions to essential changes.
>
> Regards,
>
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Bunting [mailto:dougb62@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 4:09 PM
> To: ebXML
> Subject: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
>
> David has disagreed with Chris' statement that OPTIONAL is misused
> (according
> to 2119) in a number of contexts.  The basic issue here is a conflict
> between
> something that may or may not appear in an instance of an ebXML message and
> something that must or may be implemented by a compliant ebMS system.  In
> the
> specified uses of the word OPTIONAL, the first is meant but our document
> conventions (section 1.1.1) restricts us to using OPTIONAL only when the
> second is intended.  I would strongly recommend making the change Chris
> suggested.
>
> thanx,
>     doug
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>