Re: [ws-tx] Unfinished editorial business re wsp:Optional

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

Alastair Green wrote:

> I think we forgot to do something about the following sentence, when 
> discussing/resolving 045 at the F2F:
>
> New uploaded WD 0.6 ll. 245-246:
>
> "1. whether a requester MAY, MUST or SHOULD NOT include an 
> AtomicTransaction CoordinationContext flowed with the message."
>
> I believe we agreed that we only aimed to find a way of representing 
> the semantics MAY and MUST, and therefore that the sentence should read:
>
> "1. whether a requester MUST or MAY include an AtomicTransaction 
> CoordinationContext flowed with the message."
>
> Alastair

mm1: Alastair, I believe this is the paragraph that was to agreed to be 
deleted; therefore, is not MUST the only specific requirement? This is 
the sentence that was deleted which includes the deletion of MAY and 
SHOULD NOT.

    "Presence of both policy alternatives indicates that the behavior
    indicated by the assertion is optional, such that an atomic
    transaction MAY be flowed inside a requester's message. The absence
    of the assertion is interpreted to mean that a transaction SHOULD
    NOT be flowed inside a requester's message.)"