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

["Ram Jeyaraman" <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>]

Alastair, Monica,

Can one of you please summarize the editorial changes we agreed to,
relating to issue 45, in the last TC call?

It will be easier for the issues list to point to a specific email,
instead of grafts from several emails.

Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Monica.Martin@Sun.COM [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 8:20 AM
To: Alastair Green
Cc: Joseph Fialli; ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-tx] Unfinished editorial business re wsp:Optional


>> 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/ws
tx-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.)"
>>