[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [openc2-actuator] SLPF: Ambiguity in the meaning of the word 'Required'
All,
There were multiple comments regarding the word 'required'. In the context of the SLPF tables, the word 'Required' was supposed to mean that products must implement the command, option, specifier etc. The word 'Optional' was supposed to mean that the command, option, specifier or whatever is meaningful to a stateless packet filter, and a vendor MAY implement it, but if they do not, the product is still OpenC2 compatible.
This lead to confusion. Some readers interpreted the word required as 'MUST be in every command'.
Here is a suggested resolution:
Current table headers and entries are some variant of :
OPTION REQUIRED/OPTIONAL DESCRIPTION
Response required Indicates the type of response...
Proposed change
OPTION IMPLEMENTATION DESCRIPTION
Response required indicates the type of...
If we change the heading to implementation and the entry to either required or optional, then the reader should be able to discern that they have to implement it, but just because it is implemented does not mean they have to use it in each and every command.
Is this clear, and if not can you provide alternate text?
Thank you
VR
Joe Brule
------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_ workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]