[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: I047: BSLA - Conformance Issues 1
Issue # I047 For BSLA Spec only Related issue I038, I045 and I046 Original Message: ----------------- From: William Cox wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:36:44 -0400 To: soa-eerp@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [soa-eerp] NEW Issue: Conformance Issues 1 PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL OR START A DISCUSSION THREAD UNTIL THE ISSUE IS ASSIGNED A NUMBER. The issues coordinators will notify the list when that has occurred. Protocol: bqos rating sla Artifact: spec Type: design Title: Conformance Issues 1 Description: This issue applies to BusinessQualityOfService-v1.0-spec-wd04.pdf BusinessRating-v1.0-spec-wd05.pdf BusinessServiceLevelAgreement-v1.0-spec-wd04.pdf Examples are from BQOS. See lines 427-448 This addresses overall issues for conformance that I believe are in all three specifications. Line numbers from BQOS. (1) Line 432 - which "table above"? (2) Many of the conformance clauses reference SHOULD and MAY statements. It is not clear what MUST be done to conform. (3) Another issue, Unrecognized Attributes and Extensibility, points out interoperability issues with the conformance and descriptions as provided. The choices should be conscious and clearly spelled out and justified. (4) The conformance section references "OPTIONAL messages" (line 446 and elsewhere). What is meant by "message"? And who does or does not "support" it? This reads as if it were copied from a protocol spec, not a vocabulary spec. Related issues: Unrecognized Attributes and Extensibility Proposed Resolution: (a) Make terminology consistent; if the inconsistency is correct, state reason in normative text. (b) Address interoperability concerns for multiple implementations, particularly ones that do not recognize the same sets of attributes. Explain in normative or non-normative text why the specified behavior is necessary or desirable for interoperation. (c) Justify choices made in Appendix B or other non-normative text. The range of choices must be described, as well as the rationale for the particular choices. (d) Correct wording referring to messages to "instances". Clarify who or what supports what behavior; see related issue on extensibility. bill cox -- *William Cox* Email: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com <mailto:wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com> Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com +1 862 485 3696 mobile +1 908 277 3460 fax -------------------------------------------------------------------- myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]