Re: [wsrm] Proposed Resolution for Rel22

[Martin Sachs <msachs@cyclonecommerce.com>]

IMHO, the word "optional" must only be used where optionality for 
implementation is intended.  RFC2119 is specifically about optionality for 
implementation.  For any other uses of "optional", other words should be 
found instead of using the word "optional".  Please also be aware that 
while use of the RFC2119 words in capital letters has become a common 
practice, RFC2119 does not require the use of capital letters for those 
words.  Therefore, the use of lower case (e.g. "optional") when the word is 
for purpose other than optionality of implementation violates RFC2119 and 
will cause confusion.

Regards,
Marty


At 01:48 AM 8/29/2003 -0700, iwasa wrote:
>Here is a proposed resolution for Rel22:
>
>--
>REL-22 Spec  meta Editorial Unassigned Tom Rutt
>Title: Optionality
>Description: The use of the term OPTIONAL needs to be
>revisited particularly in a specification of this nature where
>interoperability is an explicit goal and RFC 2119 has been
>referenced.  [see original spec]
>Proposal: Go to email on this issue
>--
>
>Proposed Resolution:
>We inlude Conformance section in the spec.
>The word "OPTIONAL " in the spec means
>the element or attribute is optional to be in a message.
>But it doesn't say anything about optionality
>for implementation.
>Comformance section should mention about
>the optionality for implementation.
>--
>
>Any comments?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Iwasa
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of 
>the OASIS TC), go to 
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php.

*************************************
Martin Sachs
standards architect
Cyclone Commerce
msachs@cyclonecommerce.com