Re: Proposal: normative changes for profiles

John, 

For the vanilla case I'm happy with the MUSTs and 'make creation easy' thing. I think this is good. 

I question the chocolate case - there seems to be looser guarantees, which doesn't seem fair. e.g. I think that MUSTs are useful for both types. The key thing seems to be 'as long as any constraints are obeyed'.

As a suggestion, and just taking 4.2.9 as example, why not say something like "providing constraints set by the server are met, LDPR servers MUST enable creation and modification of LDPR's". Isn't this phrasing applicable to both the vanilla and chocolate cases ?

Roger

p.s. I'm just thinking out loud. I'll wait for on your steering otherwise ... 



On 2 Oct 2013, at 18:28, John Arwe wrote:

> But, I might restate that as: A vanilla server is just a chocolate 
> server with zero constraints. 

I'm not clear if you are thinking out loud or making a different proposal (either is fine). 

All I can say is: 
- if you are making a concrete proposal, I'd suggest including the new and old full text.  People seem to do better with a strawman. 
- Assuming that the above corresponds to a proposal to completely replace 4.5.7, I'd prefer to not entirely lose "make creation easy" thought so I'd -0.5 such a proposal.  I am completely open to that becoming a guideline as a way to keep it, if that's where WG consensus lands.

Broadly speaking, I agree with the sentiment you expressed, applied to the limited context of 4.5.7.  It would need to be re-cast in 2119 language of course.


Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages 
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario