If a TC chooses not to use all RFC2119 keywords and to ban any lower case use of the terms in the spec I dont think this contradicts
or violates anything. I simply see this as intructions to editors to do things a certain way.
Martin.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mary McRae [mailto:] On Behalf Of Mary McRae
>Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 6:58 PM
>To: 'Anish Karmarkar';
>Cc: 'Patil, Sanjay'; 'Mike Edwards'; 'Martin Chapman'; 'Ashok
>Malhotra'; 'David Booz'; 'Michael Rowley'; 'Blohm, Henning';
>'Bryan Aupperle'; 'Simon Holdsworth'
>Subject: RE: [opencsa-ms] SCA TC Liaison issues
>
>
>Hi everyone,
>
> I just wanted to chime in, regarding Issue 2, that the while
>the document produced by the TAB has been approved by the TAB
>and forwarded to staff, it has not been published as
>guidelines or recommendations. There is some confusion about
>what keywords should or should not be used, and a
>recently-prepared chart makes it even more confusing. I expect
>that the final version, once posted might read a bit
>differently (that is, including the use of terms the current
>version says should be avoided).
>
> I just didn't want the TCs making decisions on something
>that has no official standing and has not been made publicly available.
>
>Regards,
>
>Mary
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:]
>> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 1:30 PM
>> To:
>> Cc: Patil, Sanjay; Mike Edwards; Martin Chapman; Ashok
>Malhotra; David
>> Booz; Michael Rowley; Blohm, Henning; Bryan Aupperle; Simon
>Holdsworth
>> Subject: [opencsa-ms] SCA TC Liaison issues
>>
>> Open CSA SC,
>>
>> The SCA BPEL TC has two issues, which were discussed during the
>> recently concluded F2F, that require coordination across all
>SCA TCs.
>> Since there
>> is no official liaison mechanism set up, on behalf of SCA BPEL TC I'm
>> bringing these issues to the attention of the Open CSA SC. I
>would like
>> to request the SC to coordinate this across all the SCA TCs.
>>
>> Issue 1: What should be the version of the SCA specs?
>>
>> Should the version of the SCA specs be 2.0 or 1.x? Or
>something else?
>> It is certainly possible to have the assembly specification
>be version
>> 2.0 and BPEL C&I specification version that depends on
>assembly 2.0 be
>> 1.5, for example. But such version numbers will be very confusing.
>> Given that the TCs are affiliated with the Open CSA MS, a better
>> approach would be to have the same version number for all
>the initial
>> output specifications of the various SCA TC. If not, at the very
>> least, have the number before the "." be the same. This will require
>> coordination and agreement across all the TCs.
>>
>> Issue 2: Use of RFC 2119 keywords in the spec
>>
>> In aligning the spec with the OASIS template and accepting the OASIS
>> TAB recommendations, the SCA BPEL TC decided to use the RFC 2119
>> keywords along with the following restriction:
>> a) All RFC 2119 keywords will be of the uppercase form (for example,
>> RFC
>> 2119 keywords MUST be capitalized)
>> b) use of lowercase 2119 keywords will not be used in the spec. When
>> the
>> use of 2119 keyword is needed, without having the implications wrt
>> conformance, a suitable synonym will be found.
>> c) RFC 2119 defines keywords that are synonyms of each other. For
>> example 'SHALL' and 'MUST' mean the same thing. The TC decided to not
>> use multiple forms to mean the same. Therefore the TC decided to use
>> 'MUST' instead of 'SHALL' and 'MUST NOT' instead of 'SHALL
>NOT' through
>> out the spec.
>> Please note that the use of RFC 2119 keywords affect conformance.
>> Consistency across the SCA spec with respect to conformance
>and the use
>> of normative conformance lanaguage is highly desirable.
>>
>> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>>
>> Thanks and regards.
>>
>> -Anish Karmarkar
>> SCA BPEL TC co-chair on behalf of SCA BPEL TC
>> --
>
>
