RE: [ebxml-msg] conformance section in MS

Title: conformance section in MS

Jacques,

 

This is what the spec says now.  Please add an additional sentence 
or two for "strong/weak conformance" and to make mention of other 
specifications.

 

1.3           
Minimal Requirements for 
Conformance

An implementation of this specification MUST satisfy ALL of the following 
conditions to be considered a conforming 
implementation:

·          
It supports all the mandatory 
syntax, features and behavior (as identified by the [RFC2119] key words MUST, 
MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL and SHALL NOT) defined in Part I – Core 
Functionality.

·          
It supports all the mandatory 
syntax, features and behavior defined for each of the additional module(s), 
defined in Part II – Additional Features, the implementation has chosen to 
implement.

·          
If it has implemented optional 
syntax, features and/or behavior defined in this specification, it MUST be 
capable of interoperating with another implementation that has not implemented 
the optional syntax, features and/or behavior.  It MUST be capable of processing the 
prescribed failure mechanism for those optional features it has chosen to 
implement.

·          
It is capable of interoperating with 
another implementation that has chosen to implement optional syntax, features 
and/or behavior, defined in this specification, it has chosen not to implement. 
Handling of unsupported features SHALL be implemented in accordance with the 
prescribed failure mechanism defined for the 
feature.

 

Thanks,

 

David Fischer

Drummond Group

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Jacques Durand 
  [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 8:23 
  PM
To: ''; ''
Cc: 
  ''; 
  ''
Subject: [ebxml-msg] conformance 
  section in MS

  
David, Ian, 

  
"Editorial" point on conformance section 
  again...: 

  
As it was agreed to move a more detailed MS 
  conformance clause (with levels or profiles) out of the spec document, 
  
and into a separate document (probably the 
  implementation guidelines), I think it is rather redundant to 
have any conformance description at all in the spec 
  body. 

  
This being said,  if we still want to insert a 
  basic conformance requirement (e.g. based on Chris' draft), then I 
  would 
suggest the following rewording, so 
  that there is no confusion in readers mind: 

  
1- Instead of "Implementation conformance", 
  use  title : "Minimal (or general) requirements for conformance", 
  
as a more detailed conformance clause will 
  expand on this section in another document. 

  
2- in (b), "optional module(s)" should be replaced 
  by "additional module(s)" to be consistent with spec wording. 

  
3-  Insert a mention that more details on 
  conformance profiles and their implementation 
will be found in a companion document ("MS implementation guidelines") 
  to be published soon after. 

  
Besides this, I still want to point out that the 
  RFC 2119 keyword explanation (referred in (a) of Chris draft) 
- especially for optional features - is not enough to remove 
  any ambiguity when implementing. 
That is 
  the whole point of strong vs. weak conformance definitions. 

  
So I would either insert the strong/weak 
  conformance definitions and refer to them, or simply say in (a) that the 
  
core features/modules must always be 
  implemented as specified in Part I. 
(and we 
  would also move these definitions in the implementation guidelines) 

  
Regards, 

  
Jacques Durand 
Fujitsu Software