RE: [ws-tx] NEW Issue: WS-C: Clarify normative requirements for MU attribute.

["Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>]

I have to strongly disagree. If anyone is uncomfortable with a motion
they can ask for it to be tabled (US style), vote against etc etc. A
blanket ban on such motions is harmful and may come back to bite us in
an unmentionable place, as will inventing process where no invention is
required. 

In this particular case as well, we did have a concrete proposal and  it
didn’t involve pages of text either; 
it was well manageable for a con call, especially with irc support.


Martin.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Colleen Evans [mailto:coevans@microsoft.com] 
>Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 7:27 PM
>To: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: [ws-tx] NEW Issue: WS-C: Clarify normative 
>requirements for MU attribute.
>
>
>Issue name -- WS-C: Clarify normative requirements for MU attribute.
>
>Target document and draft: WS-C working drafts 1.1
>
>Protocol: Coord
> 
>Artifact:  spec
>
>Draft: 1.1 working drafts of Coord. Lines 179-180.
>
>Links to the documents referenced: 
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/15738/WS-Coor
dination-2005-11-22.pdf

Issue type:  Editorial

Related issues:  None 

Issue Description:
Lines 179-180 outline a condition where mustUnderstand is required,
however the current text does not reflect the normative nature of this
requirement.

Issue Details:
WS-Coordination lines 179 and 180 state:
"When a context is exchanged as a SOAP header, the mustUnderstand
attribute must be present and its value must be true."

The 'must' in this sentence should reflect a normative requirement.

Proposed Resolution:
Replace the text:
"When a context is exchanged as a SOAP header, the mustUnderstand
attribute must be present and its value must be true."

With:

"When a context is exchanged as a SOAP header, the mustUnderstand
attribute MUST be present and its value MUST be true."