Re: [wsrp] [CR315] - Producers SHOULD or MAY do userProfile namemapping

[Subbu Allamaraju <subbu@bea.com>]

Good point. However, there is room for interpretation of "valid 
reasons". We gain interop by treating SHOULD as a "MUST except under 
extraordinary circumstances", and encourage implementations to honor 
SHOULD under normal circumstances.

For this change request, if a Producer treats SHOULD as a MAY and does 
not do mapping, it would affect interop. Moreover, having two similar 
conformance statements for both the Consumer and the Producer also 
affects interop. Since both conformance statements use SHOULD, it is 
unclear what the guidance is, and how interop can be achieved?

Regards,

Subbu


Rich Thompson wrote:
> 
> Since this will be a debate over the application of conformance 
> language, the following are the copied definitions from RFC2119:
> 
> *SHOULD*: This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may 
> exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular 
> item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed 
> before choosing a different course.
> 
> *MAY*: This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is 
> truly optional.  One vendor may choose to include the item because a 
> particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels that it 
> enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same item. An 
> implementation which does not include a particular option MUST be 
> prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does include 
> the option, though perhaps with reduced functionality. In the same vein 
> an implementation which does include a particular option MUST be 
> prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does not 
> include the option (except, of course, for the feature the option 
> provides.)
> 
> 
> Saying the Producer SHOULD map user profile names allows for Producers 
> to choose not to support name mapping (a valid reason for some 
> implementations would be the impact on the PortletDescription of POPs), 
> but does require that people understand the implications of that choice 
> (less likely to receive the data).  Reducing this to "MAY" does not 
> require the Consumer to do the name mapping, though it does make it 
> easier for Producer developers to blow by the statement.
> 
> Note: There is a corresponding SHOULD relative to Consumers mapping 
> custom user profile names.
> 
> Rich
> 
> 
> *Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS*
> 
> 05/04/05 01:32 PM
> 
> 	
> To
> 	wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
> cc
> 	
> Subject
> 	[wsrp] [CR315] - Producers SHOULD or MAY do userProfile name mapping
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Document: Specification 2.0 Draft
> Requested by: Subbu Allamaraju
> Section: 5.1.2 PortletDescription Type
> Page: 25
> Line: 17
> Old Text:
> Any use of additional userProfile items specified as available when the 
> Consumer registered SHOULD use the names the Consumer supplied.
> 
> New Text:
> Any use of additional userProfile items specified as available when the 
> Consumer registered *MAY *use the names the Consumer supplied.
> 
> Reasoning:
> The current text places the burden on the producer to do the mapping. 
> Since this requires the producer to change the portlet description after 
> registration, producers will be required to maintain different portlet 
> description for each portlet (even for POPs). The changed text
> would place less burden on producers. Producers can still do the 
> mapping, but it should be completely optional (MAY).