Re: [ws-caf] proposal for issue 243

[Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>]

I've set up the vote. Separately, I propose adding the following text - 
I didn't want to put it into the vote in case people agreed with the UTC 
format, but had issue with the text:

 In addition, add the following text:

"Implementations MAY use fine-grained clock synchronization protocols. 
However, this specification does not require such protocols and 
therefore timeout values that are specified with seconds MUST NOT be 
relied upon unless additional information is available which is outside 
the scope of this specification."

Mark.



Mark Little wrote:

> Does anyone have any comments on this? I'd like to start a vote on 
> this in the next few days, so please let me know by Friday.
>
> Mark.
>
>
> Mark Little wrote:
>
>> Actually as Kevin just pointed out to me, this won't work unless the 
>> receiver knows when the duration started. So, I suggest we go for 
>> dateTime and require it to be UTC. Obviously there'll need to be some 
>> text about the fact we don't require clock synchronization protocols 
>> to be run, so this should not be used for fine-grained time decisions.
>>
>> Mark.
>>
>>
>> Mark Little wrote:
>>
>>> http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=243
>>>
>>> With reference to http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#isoformats
>>>
>>> I don't really have a preference either way (dateTime or duration), 
>>> but since the context timeout is meant to be the duration for the 
>>> context, it seems to make more sense to set this to be the duration 
>>> (http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#duration).
>>>
>>> Mark.
>>>
begin:vcard
fn:Mark Little
n:Little;Mark
email;internet:mark.little@arjuna.com
title:Chief Architect
version:2.1
end:vcard