FW: [provision] Groups - SPML Errata Draft 5 (pstc-spml2-errata-draft-05.doc) uploaded

["Bohren, Jeff" <Jeff_Bohren@BMC.com>]

This is the new errata item that I would like to address on today's
call. 

My preference is to create a new errata item rather than trying to put
this into one of the existing errata.

Jeff B.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary.P.Cole@Sun.COM [mailto:Gary.P.Cole@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 3:23 PM
To: Bohren, Jeff
Cc: provision@lists.oasis-open.org; Clyde Adley
Subject: Re: [provision] Groups - SPML Errata Draft 5
(pstc-spml2-errata-draft-05.doc) uploaded

I may have found one more item related to <spml:modification> for the 
Errata.  The issue is closely related to E1, which addresses the 
conflict between the SPML 2.0 Specification and the SPML 2.0 DSML 
Profile with regard to the <spml:component> sub-element of 
<spml:modification>.

A similar conflict exists between the Specification and the DSML Profile

with regard to the <data> sub-element of the <spml:modification> 
element.  The SPML 2.0 Specification, in section 3.6.1.4.1 
"modifyRequest", states that:
    Modification data. A requestor MUST specify as the content of the 
<data> sub-element of a
    <modification> any content or value that is to be added to, replaced

within, or deleted from the
    element or attribute that the <component> (sub-element of the 
<modification>) specifies.

This has led several users of SPML to code a modifyRequest with the 
<dsml:modification> nested within an <spml:data> sub-element of the 
<spml:modification> element, as shown below:
    <spml:modification>
       <spml:data>
          <dsml:modification>
          </dsml:modification>
       </spml:data>
    </spml:modification>

The SPML 2.0 DSML Profile, however, disagrees.  Section 3.3.3 Modify 
Request shows the <dsml:modification> element nested directly within the

<spml:modification>, as follows:
    <spml:modification>
       <dsml:modification>
       </dsml:modification>
    </spml:modification>

Section 4.2.2 of the DSML Profile states that the <spml:modification> 
element MUST contain zero or many <dsml:modification> elements.

Have we already discussed this?  Perhaps Errata item E1 could be amended

so that it also addresses the <data> sub-element.  Alternatively, we 
could insert a new E2 that does the same thing for the <data> 
sub-element that we did for the <component> sub-element.  Either way, 
we're just loosening the Specification so as to remove the conflict with

the DSML Profile.

If we change the title of E1 from "Relaxed requirements for the use of 
<component>"
to "Relaxed requirements for the use of <component> within
<modification>",
this might make it easier for the reader to understand that 
<modification> is affected.

We could add an E2 "Relaxed requirements for the use of <data> within 
<modification>"
(or we could combine both into a longer E1 "Relaxed requirements for the

use of <component> and <data> within <modification>").

Gary Cole


Jeff_Bohren@bmc.com wrote:
> The document named SPML Errata Draft 5
(pstc-spml2-errata-draft-05.doc) has
> been submitted by Mr. Jeff Bohren to the OASIS Provisioning Services
TC
> document repository.
>
> Document Description:
> SPML Errata Draft 5.
>
> View Document Details:
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/provision/document.php?docu
ment_id=24631
>
> Download Document:  
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/provision/download.php/2463
1/pstc-spml2-errata-draft-05.doc
>
>
> PLEASE NOTE:  If the above links do not work for you, your email
application
> may be breaking the link into two pieces.  You may be able to copy and
paste
> the entire link address into the address field of your web browser.
>
> -OASIS Open Administration
>