RFC2119 Language review (part 1)

[Bryan Aupperle <aupperle@us.ibm.com>]

I have reviewed section 4 through section
4.10 (a 3 to 4 hour effort)

Ron, you have made a great start on
this and my comments/changes reflect the perspective I have gained going
through the same effort in various SCA TCs.

I have tried to do several things.
1) Make the subject of every normative
statement either an SDO implementation or a specific method.
2) Change "throw an exception"
to "raise an error" - This is consistent terminology as has been
used in the SCA Assembly and Binding specs.
3) Add labels for MAY statements that
are truly normative
4) Reword MAY statements that are not
proper use of MAY
5) Reword statements with "required"
since REQUIRED is a keyword.
6) Add missing MUST statements (such
as an implementation MUST raise an error when name conflicts are detected).

I have done my best not to change any
meanings, but I do not guarantee that I have not missed some subtlety or
another. 



Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect

Research Triangle Park,  NC 
+1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
Internet Address: aupperle@us.ibm.com

sdo-core-090814-1_BEAv1.doc