[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-tx] Issue 058 - definition of Referencing Specification
The goal is not to prevent implementations or specifications from going beyond the boundaries of the WS-Coordination specification; they are free to, but at *their* own risk. It is just that we don't want to provide a specific guidance, until we know for sure what those specific usages are. This way the implementations cannot hold us responsible, if we chose to require the optional parts in a future revision. Really, it just boils down to the fact that we don't have enough data yet, to provide a specific guidance. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Peter Furniss [mailto:peter.furniss@erebor.co.uk] Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 3:19 PM To: Ram Jeyaraman; Mark Little Cc: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [ws-tx] Issue 058 - definition of Referencing Specification Ok, now I understand what you were concerned about. But surely if one of our specifications makes something optional it is because our protocol will work with or without the feature (albeit with some kind of variation in detail presumably). And somewhere in the sequence: base-spec -> referencing spec -> product -> configuration options -> real instance of one transaction, that optionality will get resolved to does or doesn't do it. What would it mean to say that some feature must be optional down implementation level ? [ that's assuming right use of the MAY/MUST terms - commonly, a feature that MAY be used on sending, MUST be accepted on receiving for interoperability ] And silence won't prevent what you are concerned about. In the absence of a statement, a referencing specification is apparently permitted to make a ws-tx optional into MUST/MUST NOT. The point is not that silence is really confusing (because whatever is not prohibited, is permissible), but that it may be assumed to be confusing. Probably making more of this than its worth. Peter -----Original Message----- From: Ram Jeyaraman [mailto:Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com] Sent: 08 May 2006 20:44 To: Peter Furniss; Mark Little Cc: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [ws-tx] Issue 058 - definition of Referencing Specification Peter, I am just concerned that it will be hard for us to retract, if we discover later that we do not intend other specifications to restrict or limit the optional items. We just don't have enough data at this point to make a definitive statement; so it is best not to provide a specific guidance. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Peter Furniss [mailto:peter.furniss@erebor.co.uk] Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 12:14 PM To: Ram Jeyaraman; Mark Little Cc: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [ws-tx] Issue 058 - definition of Referencing Specification Ram, You seem to be reading the text in the opposite way to the way I, and I perceive, Mark and Alastair read it. The longer texts are all intending to maximise the potential set of RS. You seem to be reading it as imposing bounds. The risk is that, in the absence of a clear statement that there are no limits to an RS, some other statement in the spec (perhaps intended by the authors to illustrative) is taken as implying a limit. Peter -----Original Message----- From: Ram Jeyaraman [mailto:Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com] Sent: 08 May 2006 19:21 To: Mark Little Cc: Peter Furniss; ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [ws-tx] Issue 058 - definition of Referencing Specification Mark, When implementations go over and beyond the specification requirements, they carry a risk, and they should know it. They cannot come back and say "The specification said such and so". On the other hand, yes, specifications make general statements to set expectations; to provide future guidance. For example, a specification may generally describe how to handle a specific situation, and later on, in a future version, require the described behavior. But this is well intended and directed by the specification towards a specific outcome, and implementations follow it, even though it may not be a requirement. In this case, if the specification reverses the guidance in a future version, then implementers can always come back and say "Well, you lead me in that direction; why are you changing the specification now?" It becomes really hard for the specification to make changes. At this time, we do not know about other specifications (potentially in other standards bodies) that may compose with WS-Coordination; and we do not have enough data at this point to provide a concrete guidance. So, it is better not to say anything, until a time, we have more data on other compositions. So, I suggest we provide a definition for the term Referencing specification, as you proposed earlier: "Referencing Specification One or more other specifications, such as, but not limited to, WS-AtomicTransaction, that may reference the WS-Coordination specification." Later, when we have more data about other compositions, we can discuss about providing specific guidance in the specification. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@jboss.com] Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 1:41 AM To: Ram Jeyaraman Cc: Peter Furniss; ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [ws-tx] Issue 058 - definition of Referencing Specification In the same way that saying nothing about something can be read by different vendors in different ways to imply conformance. This is a age-old "feature" of standards. You should know that from having worked on the JTA ;-) Basically: if you don't say anything then everybody can interpret the lack of information in their own manner and there is no way to prove the original intent of the authors. Mark. Ram Jeyaraman wrote: >> Precisely because we do not know what the RS will be or want to do, >> > and we wish to make sure that restrictions are not implied by our > silence. > > How does silence imply restrictions? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Furniss [mailto:peter.furniss@erebor.co.uk] > Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 2:44 PM > To: Ram Jeyaraman; Mark Little > Cc: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [ws-tx] Issue 058 - definition of Referencing Specification > > Ram asks: > > "Why should a specification make such a general statement?" > > Precisely because we do not know what the RS will be or want to do, and > we wish to make sure that restrictions are not implied by our silence. > For example, to make sure the following statements are invalid: > > - WS-C can only be used for transaction protocols > > - If <x> is optional in WS-C, an RS cannot forbid <x> when WS-C is > used with the RS > > - If <x> is optional in WS-C, an RS cannot require <x> when WS-C is > used with the RS > > - This protocol A cannot legitimately use WS-C because the > specification of A is proprietary and unpublished > > - This end-user application cannot use WS-C because what is added to > WS-C is only defined in some of the comments in the code > > Of course, if we are sure no-one would be so daft as to make any of > those statements, then we don't need to have the longer RS definition. > But some remarkably daft statements are sometimes made about standards > and having chapter and verse to contradict them can be useful. > > Peter > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ram Jeyaraman [mailto:Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com] > Sent: 05 May 2006 19:21 > To: Mark Little > Cc: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [ws-tx] Issue 058 - definition of Referencing Specification > > > We really do not know at this point, how this affects other > specifications and implementations, and what the implications are. > > Why should a specification make such a general statement? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@jboss.com] > Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 3:27 AM > To: Ram Jeyaraman > Cc: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [ws-tx] Issue 058 - definition of Referencing Specification > > I disagree. In fact, how much more general a definition can you get ;-)? > > Mark. > > > Ram Jeyaraman wrote: > >> It is hard to anticipate how other specifications from other standards >> > > >> bodies that may refer to the WS-Coordination specification are defined >> > > >> and used. Further, the current WS-Coordination specification does not >> preclude the possibility of referencing specifications restricting the >> > > >> optional behavior described in the WS-Coordination specification. >> >> So, it is probably best not to make a statement about Referencing >> specifications. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ram Jeyaraman [mailto:Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com] >> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 1:52 PM >> To: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org >> Subject: [ws-tx] Issue 058 - definition of Referencing Specification >> >> This is identified as WS-TX issue 058. >> >> Please ensure follow-ups have a subject line starting "Issue 058 - >> definition of Referencing Specification". >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@jboss.com] >> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 9:21 AM >> To: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org >> Subject: [ws-tx] NEW issue: definition of Referencing Specification >> >> NOTE: Please defer discussions on this issue until a time this issue >> > is > >> accepted and is assigned a number by the TC. >> >> Reference documents: >> >> >> > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/download.php/17311/ws > >> tx-wscoor-1.1-spec-cd-01.pdf >> >> with amendment from issue 030 >> >> Description: >> >> Text within WS-C refers to Referencing Specification. We have no >> > formal > >> definition of that. >> >> Resolution: >> >> One or more other specifications, such as (but not limited to) >> WS-AtomicTransaction may reference the WS-Coordination specification. >> Referencing Specifications are generally used to construct concrete >> protocols based on WS-Coordination. The usage of optional items in >> WS-Coordination, or those protocol aspects where terms such as MAY or >> SHOULD are used, may be further restricted by the requirements of a >> Referencing Specification. For the purpose of this document, the term >> > > >> Referencing Specification covers both formal specifications and more >> general applications that use WS-Coordination. >> >> Mark. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]