W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms@w3.org > March 2004

Re: Agenda Item: enhance the compliancy section?

From: Shivaram Mysore <Shivaram.Mysore@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 09:56:25 -0800
To: jose.kahan@w3.org, www-xkms@w3.org
Message-id: <4069B4C9.50800@sun.com>

Hi Jose, All,

I personally like the wording that Jose putin:

 >>
We can improve the compliancy section during the CR period. Karl's
suggestions make sense to me and I think that they would help the
XKMS spec and that they could be done with the experience acquired
during the preparation of the interop matrix.
<<

I believe this is a good statement for us to follow.  If no one has any 
objections/suggestions for better alternatives or comments by tomorrow 
COB Pacific Time, I would suggest this that we move on with the above 
notion.  Also, by doing an interop and going thro' this process will 
help us better address the compliance issue and it has been suggested 
that there are various ways of documenting this compliance w/o putting 
additional burden on the spec itself like publishing a W3C Note for 
compliancy, etc.

/Shivaram


Jose Kahan wrote:
> Hello folks,
> 
> I hope we can discuss this in tomorrow's call. We need to answer
> Karl what is the WG's position regarding these comments.
> 
> Karl Dubost from the Quality Assurance (QA) domain sent us 
> some late feedback and a request to improve the Conformance 
> Section (Section 9 in the current draft). I'm including his
> message here below.
> 
> We can improve the compliancy section during the CR period. Karl's
> suggestions make sense to me and I think that they would help the 
> XKMS spec and that they could be done with the experience acquired
> during the preparation of the interop matrix. 
> 
> The issue is to know is if the WG wants to engage itself to make
> a better compliancy section and how deep this engagement will go.
> If the WG feels that it'll be able to improve the Compliancy section,
> we should say something in the proposed Status of Document section [1].
> 
> Karl's also right in that there is a missing compliancy section for
> part-2 and no indications whether the comliancy for part-1 should
> be used. The only relationship between part-1 and part-2 for this is
> that the part-1 conformance section says broadly which parts of 
> part-2 have to be used (e.g., Soap/1.2 is required). The actual 
> details of the bindings don't have any conformance section. 
> Overall part-2 is mostly informal and gives bindings "by example" 
> rather than by an exact description.
> 
> I don't know if this was the intention or if more strict language and
> conformance must be used.
> 
> The QA folks also invite us to send messages to their public mailing
> list (www-qa-wg@w3.org) if we would like to have more help in building
> test suites or improving the Compliance section or just sharing their
> experiences to help us jump-starting the process. They are also
> preparing a test-suite guideline that could be interesting to us
> (http://www.w3.org/QA/wg/)
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -jose
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/rqim.html
> --------------------------------------
> From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: XKMS move to CR, follow up
> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 13:59:14 -0500
> 
> Hi Jose,
> 
> Le 12 mars 2004, =E0 11:26, Jose Kahan a =E9crit :
> 
>>N.B. Karl, you had promised to mail in some comments concerning
>>compliancy.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm happy to see XKMS with Conformance section now. It was not the case
> in the past.  That's a big progress. I have still a few comments with
> regards to it. Sometimes the language is a bit confusing because you
> define Conformance Keywords.
> 
> 
>>[347] If support for a feature is specified as REQUIRED a conforming
>>XKMS implementation MUST support the use of that feature in a message
>>sent by another XKMS implementation.
> 
> 
> No ambiguities. It will define a first level (let's say level A)
> profile of Conformance as in
> 	"A conforming Level A XKMS implementation MUST implement all the
>          REQUIRED feature"
> 
> 
>>[348] If support for a feature is specified as RECOMMENDED a
>>conforming XKMS implementation SHOULD support the use of that feature
>>if used by another XKMS implementation.
> 
> 
> Here there's no way to define a profile of conformance. With the
> sentence above, you can NOT say.
> 	"A conforming Level B XKMS implementation MUST implement all the=
> 
> RECOMMENDED feature and all the REQUIRED feature"
> 
> It's difficult to define in the used wording what is meant exactly. As
> a developer it means that I have to implement all MUST as MUST and all
> SHOULD as SHOULD but doesn't tell me what is the profile of
> Interoperability I have chosen for my implementation.
> 
> What I have qualified by "all" can be refined if you think that some
> SHOULD features do not have to be implemented all together and still
> guarantee interoperability.
> 
> It seems in part it' what you have defined with "*" and "+" but it add
> another level of confusion. It would be better to organize profiles
> of Conformance:
> 	Profile A: This
> 	Profile B: This and That
> 	Profile C: This, That, and This
> 	etc.
> 
> 
>>[350] Some features as specified as REQUIRED* or RECOMMENDED*. This
>>signifies that the condition holds if another feature is supported.
>>For example an XKMS Locate service is not required to support XML
>>Signature. If however XML Signature is supported the use of Exclusive
>>Canonicalization MUST be supported.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I like the use of examples in the Conformance section. It
> might be a good way to give hints for the implementers but I think it
> should belong to a separate section.
> 
> For example, it would be nice to have a hints for implementers, where
> you give examples, if you think the conformance section is not clear
> enough.
> 
> 
>>[352] Where a service supports a feature that is advertised as
>>OPTIONAL it is recommended that the service advertise this feature by
>>means of a Web Service description mechanism. For example
> 
> 
> This lead to interoperability problems. It's fine to declare the
> feature OPTIONAL but the way the sentence is written, it makes also the
> support message optional too. What about?
> 
> [352] Where a service supports a feature that is advertised as OPTIONAL
> it is MANDATORY that the service advertise this feature by means of a
> Web Service description mechanism.
> 
> In this way, the feature might or might not be implemented but if it
> is, the other application will know it, and so will not try to guess
> if it's the case or not.
> 
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Drafts/xkms2/CR-xkms-part-2.html 
> 
> In XKMS 2.0 Binding, there is no conformance section and no reference
> to the conformance section of XKMS 2.0, if it's the one which should
> be applied.
> 
> 
> In http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/rqim.html
> s/exit criteria/entrance criteria/
> 
> I like very much the fact that the Implementation report require "A
> minimum of two complete implementations". I think it's very important,
> because double implementations of each feature doesn't prove
> interoperability but implementability.
> 
> 
> If you have any questions with regards to my comments. Please contact
> me.
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> --
> Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
> W3C Conformance Manager
> 


-- 
_____________________________________________________________________
Shivaram H. Mysore <shivaram.mysore@sun.com>

JavaSoft, Sun Microsystems Inc.     Co-Chair, W3C's XKMS WG
                                     http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS

Direct: (408)276-7524
Fax:    (408)276-7674
_____________________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 30 March 2004 12:56:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:20:07 UTC