[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-tx] Issue 058 - definition of Referencing Specification
+1 Peter Furniss wrote: > 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]