RE: [sdd] Requirement 2.1.4.1

[Christine Draper <cdraper@us.ibm.com>]

Debra,

This may seem like a rather basic question, but can you give an example of what "prioritizing alternative configurations" mean, that wouldn't be covered by prioritizing topology/target environment?

Regards,
Chrisitne

Senior Technical Staff Member
IBM, 11501 Burnet Road, Mail Point 901-6B10
Austin, TX 78758
1-512-838-3482 tl 678-3482
"Danielson, Debra J" <Debra.Danielson@ca.com>

"Danielson, Debra J" <Debra.Danielson@ca.com>

03/23/2006 12:50 PM

To	Christine Draper/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, <sdd@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	RE: [sdd] Requirement 2.1.4.1

Disagree – same rationale as my disagreement with 2.1.2.1.1. I believe that communicating information about “better” choices is important and in scope.

Regards,
Debra

---

From: Christine Draper [mailto:cdraper@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 7:16 PM
To: sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [sdd] Requirement 2.1.4.1

All,

On 2.1.4.1 I have a similar issue to 2.1.2.1.1. Prioritization of alternative configuration is not something that should be mandated by the author of a particular component, both because of external factors and overall solution requirements. At most, the author should be able to establish a preference, but I can't think of a good use case for that which isn't captured by specifying preferences for the target environment. Can anyone else? If not, I would propose:

PROPOSED:

2.1.4.1 The SDD specification must support the definition of alternative configurations.


ORIGINAL:


2.1.4.1 The SDD specification must support the definition of alternative configuration and identify a default and/or prioritizing of those alternatives.

Regards,
Christine

Senior Technical Staff Member
IBM, 11501 Burnet Road, Mail Point 901-6B10
Austin, TX 78758
1-512-838-3482 tl 678-3482