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

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

>> green: 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
>
> fialli: Independent of whether the MAY flow concept is allowed to stay 
> in document or not,
> I just wanted to point out that MAY occurs in two other places than 
> the preamble.
>
> It also occurs in Section 5.4 "Assertion Example" on lines 314 and 322 
> in latest working draft[1]
>
> -Joe

mm2: Perhaps the TC, then, should discuss any differences that exist 
between syntax and semantics to achieve greater clarity. Thanks.

> [1] link: 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/download.php/18557/wstx-wsat-1.1-spec-wd-06.pdf 
>
>
>>>> green: 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
>>>
>>> I think we forgot to do something about the following sentence, when 
>>> discussing/resolving 045 at the F2F:
>>>
>>> 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.)"
>>