[OASIS Issue Tracker] (EMERGENCY-94) TEP 1.1 - TAB-1313: Conflicting definitions of "REQUIRED"

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

Patti Aymond created EMERGENCY-94:
-------------------------------------

             Summary: TEP 1.1 - TAB-1313: Conflicting definitions of "REQUIRED"
                 Key: EMERGENCY-94
                 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/EMERGENCY-94
             Project: OASIS Emergency Management TC
          Issue Type: Bug
          Components: TEP
         Environment: Normative
            Reporter: Patti Aymond
            Assignee: Patti Aymond
            Priority: Critical


1.4 Terminology reads in part: 

***** 
The term “REQUIRED” means that empty elements or NULL values are NOT allowed. 
***** 

The draft cites RFC 2119, which defines "REQUIRED" under: 

***** 
1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification. 
***** 

That definition doesn't apply to empty elements or NULL values. 

After citing RFC2119, the draft defines "REQUIRED" to disallow empty elements or NULL values. 

Those two definitions are at odds with one another. The first is for conformance and the second is for markup. 

TEPMessage reads in part: 

Usage 

***** 
REQUIRED; MUST be used once and only once 
***** 

I don't see what REQUIRED is adding to the "MUST" ? 

The vast majority of the REQUIRED instances read as messageID does in part: 

***** 
Usage REQUIRED; MUST be used once and only once [1..1] 
***** 

So if you are going to use markup constraints [1...1] why do you need the REQUIRED? 

There are forty-three (43) cases and I think I have checked all of them. The secondary use of REQUIRED conflicts with RFC2119 and is redundant as far as I can see.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2.2#6258)