Re: [sca-bindings] BINDINGS-119: BWS40006's final clause is unnecessary

[Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>]

Logged as: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-119

-Eric.

On 02/10/2010 04:55 PM, Anish Karmarkar wrote:
> Description:
> BWS4006 says --
> "When using the default transport binding rules, the SCA runtime MAY
> provide additional WSDL bindings, unless policy is applied that
> explicitly restricts this."
>
> Why is the clause "... unless policy is applied that explicitly
> restricts this." necessary when this is a MAY? Why is this explicitly
> called out for only for the default binding rules. Isn't this true in
> the general case.
>
> Proposal:
>
> Convert BWS40006 to a sentence without the RFC2119 keyword: s/MAY/can/