[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
David,
If you can quote words in RFC2119 that prescribe (normative) that the
keywords be in all caps, I might change my view. Merely observing that
most people use the keywords in all caps when they mean them in the RFC2119
sense doesn't cut it. If you want to be sure that developers interpret the
keywords as intended, you should expend the effort to avoid those words
where the RFC2119 sense is not intended. The CPPA team has already cleaned
up its document in this regard.
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 02/17/2002 01:14:51 PM
To: ebXML Msg <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc:
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
Here are some more responses from the IETF concerning the RFC2119 key
words. It
seems some of these words were actually identified in earlier RFCs,
particularly
1122 & 1123.
RFC1123 also includes the "Robustness Principle" which I have cited before.
"Be liberal in what you accept, and
conservative in what you send"
This says to me that we should ignore errors where we can and continue
processing which is one of the things I have been arguing for, without much
success. If we want true interoperability, we need to follow this
principle.
Regards,
David.
-----Original Message-----
From: David Fischer [mailto:david@drummondgroup.com]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 9:57 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>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:28:42 -0600
From: "Robert Elz" <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: RFC2119 Keywords
In-reply-to: <3C6D4AD1.1050802@isi.edu>
Sender: <owner-ietf@ietf.org>
To: "Joe Touch" <touch@ISI.EDU>
Cc: "Bob Braden" <braden@ISI.EDU>, <sbrim@CISCO.COM>,
<moore@cs.utk.edu>, <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-id: <3098.1013876922@brandenburg.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
X-UIDL: 6a6af0b71ef0b9758220c9e65d216659
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
X-Loop: ietf@ietf.org
References: <3C6D4AD1.1050802@isi.edu> <200202151709.RAA26668@gra.isi.edu>
X-Authentication-warning: ietf.org: majordom set sender to
owner-ietf@ietf.org using -f
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:52:17 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
Message-ID: <3C6D4AD1.1050802@isi.edu>
| Actually, MUST was first introduced in RFC1023 two years earlier :-)
That's true, it appears there, but there it really is just a
strange typographical convention (or shouting, for emphasis).
It certainly isn't defined to mean anything special. In 1122/3 it was.
(Further, 1122/1123 defined the terms in a very specific way, which was
highly useful - quite the contrary of what most specifications using the
things these days do).
kre
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:52:17 -0600
From: "Joe Touch" <touch@ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: RFC2119 Keywords
Sender: <owner-ietf@ietf.org>
To: "Bob Braden" <braden@ISI.EDU>
Cc: <sbrim@CISCO.COM>, <moore@cs.utk.edu>, <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-id: <3C6D4AD1.1050802@isi.edu>
X-UIDL: 1982a197e4d3b65bdd5d898b824ae7d3
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252
Importance: Normal
X-Accept-Language: en-us
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
X-Loop: ietf@ietf.org
References: <200202151709.RAA26668@gra.isi.edu>
X-Authentication-warning: ietf.org: majordom set sender to
owner-ietf@ietf.org using -f
Bob Braden wrote:
> *> I don't believe the intent of 2119 was to change the meanings of
> *> "should", "must", etc., in RFCs, but rather to define new terms
> *> "SHOULD", "MUST", etc., with specific new meanings.
> *>
> *> Keith
> *>
>
> Keith's statement was certainly correct when we first introduced the
> capitalized words in the Host Requirements RFCs (1122,1123).
Actually, MUST was first introduced in RFC1023 two years earlier :-)
The list is as follows:
1023 MUST
1085 MAY
1122 SHOULD
Joe
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:10:07 -0600
From: "Paul Hoffman / IMC" <phoffman@imc.org>
Subject: Re: RFC2119 Keywords
In-reply-to: <20020215081540.B1644@SBRIM-W2K>
Sender: <owner-ietf@ietf.org>
X-Sender: phoffman@mail.imc.org
To: "Scott Brim" <sbrim@CISCO.COM>, "Ietf@Ietf. Org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-id: <p05101425b892efc47ab8@[165.227.249.20]>
X-UIDL: 5d6cb8ba76a0bf9c716e6b803b30242a
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
X-Loop: ietf@ietf.org
References: <NFBBIIHJMLEPPLNMNKLGEEMNDDAA.david@drummondgroup.com>
<Pine.GSO.4.40.0202151250570.18854-100000@brisingi.ifi.uio.no>
<20020215081540.B1644@SBRIM-W2K>
X-Authentication-warning: ietf.org: majordom set sender to
owner-ietf@ietf.org using -f
At 8:15 AM -0500 2/15/02, Scott Brim wrote:
>In normative text, I don't see how "must" could occur anywhere except
>where it was supposed to mean "MUST".
It occurs when describing how something happened, not what needs to
happen. Example from a current Internet Draft that is having the
capitalization fixed:
...not less than 3, but 4 is less than 5, so 4 must be the last digit.
->
...not less than 3, but 4 is less than 5, so 4 has to be the last digit.
There were a few places where the "must" turned into a "MUST" as a
way of specifying how an implementation of the protocol had to work.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:09:29 -0600
From: "Bob Braden" <braden@ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: RFC2119 Keywords
Sender: <owner-ietf@ietf.org>
To: <sbrim@CISCO.COM>, <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Cc: <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-id: <200202151709.RAA26668@gra.isi.edu>
X-UIDL: d4a7fe4625ce65425d5c49823d5bd6da
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
X-Loop: ietf@ietf.org
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
X-Authentication-warning: ietf.org: majordom set sender to
owner-ietf@ietf.org using -f
*> I don't believe the intent of 2119 was to change the meanings of
*> "should", "must", etc., in RFCs, but rather to define new terms
*> "SHOULD", "MUST", etc., with specific new meanings.
*>
*> Keith
*>
Keith's statement was certainly correct when we first introduced the
capitalized words in the Host Requirements RFCs (1122,1123).
Bob Brden
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC