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

[Alastair Green <alastair.green@choreology.com>]

Hi Monica,

We definitely agreed to remove the sentence you quote, which also 
includes the words "SHOULD NOT", and Andy has shown this deletion 
correctly in the latest WD. I recognize that that sentence also 
contained the word "MAY".

I think we all overlooked the fact that there was a sentence in the 
preamble to section 5 (explaining the overall intent), which also 
includes these words, so my suggestion is aimed at tidying that up in 
line with the main change that you refer to.

My recollection is that we voted to support the semantics MUST and MAY 
(Mark's motion to get agreement on design, before we hardened 
implementation).

It was then agreed that the optional syntax amounted to MAY: the server 
was declaring capability to accept a context and subordinate processsing 
thereto, but was offering the client the alternative of following the 
MUST or deciding what to do itself ("behavior undefined"). If it decided 
what to do itself then it could decide to send a context (same effect as 
following MUST) or not to send one. This is MAY because the choice is in 
the client's hands.

So, I believe that saying "MUST or MAY" is right, but I could be missing 
a subtlety here. An alternative approach would be to zap the preamble 
altogether.

Yours,

Alastair

Monica J. Martin wrote:
> 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.)"
>
>
>
>