[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [provision-comment] Possible inconsistency in SPMLv2 'suspend'capability
Hi,
We're currently implementing an SPML provider that will support the
'suspend' capability.
Lines 3818 and 3819 state: "If the <suspendRequest> specifies an
"effectiveDate", the provider MUST enable the specified object as of
that date." However, lines 3825-3828 state that if the date is in the
future then the provider MUST disable the object at that future date and
time.
I may be parsing it wrongs, but it seems like lines 3818-3819 contradict
lines 3825-3828. What was the intention? Should the effectiveDate on a
suspendRequest be the date that an object is disabled or the date that
an object is enabled?
Gabe Garza
Sabre Airline Solutions
--
This publicly archived list offers a means to provide input to the
OASIS Provisioning Services TC.
In order to verify user consent to the Feedback License terms and
to minimize spam in the list archive, subscription is required
before posting.
Subscribe: provision-comment-subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
Unsubscribe: provision-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
List help: provision-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org
List archive: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/provision-comment/
Feedback License: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/feedback_license.pdf
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
Committee: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=provision
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]