Re: [wsrp] Conformance language

From
Rich Thompson <>
Date
2005-06-02T14:49:54+00:00
ID
Thread
Re: [wsrp] Conformance language
Section 2 has a list of the words http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
defines; namely:

"The
key words MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT,
RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL in this document are to be interpreted as
described in [RFC2119]."

Note that REQUIRED (same meaning as
MUST) and RECOMMENDED (same meaning as SHOULD) are among them.

Rich 

Subbu Allamaraju <>

06/02/05 10:27 AM

To

wsrp <>

cc

Subject

[wsrp] Conformance language

At various places in WSRP1.0 (and a few times in WSRP2.0),
there are 

conformance-looking words like REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED etc.

For example, there is a statement in sec 8.2

"For security reasons related to exposing the existence of something
the 

caller is not allowed to access, it is RECOMMENDED that a AccessDenied

fault be generated ..."

To my knowledge, these are not conformance related, and I was wondering

if we should use normal casing for these words. If these are important

enough, we should probably consider using conformance words like MAY, 

MUST or SHOULD.

Comments?

Regards,

Subbu

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that

generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs
in OASIS

at:

https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php