(unknown charset) [Issue 344-ml] XKMS Schema issue: RequestAbstractType...

Hi Matt,

This is just a confirmation message for closing the decision cycle.

The comments you reported[1] were assigned issue id  343-ml[1].

The WG acknowledges your XKMS schema changes but has decided it is
not convenient to change the schema for additional clarity
at this stage. Your schema changes will be documented in a To-Do list (in
addition to the issues list) so that they can be taken into account
in future revisions of the XKMS specification.

Isuee 344-ml[2] was accepted and took into account the changes you
proposed to the text that will clarify the semantics.

Could you please acknowledge if you have any objections?

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Drafts/pr-issues/issues.html#343-ml
[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Drafts/pr-issues/issues.html#344-ml

Thanks,

-jose

On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 09:44:18AM -0000, Matt Long wrote:
> Issue: The XKMS Schema RequestAbstractType is used to extend all request types,
> but uses an optional element 'RespondWith' that is only applicable and required
> by certain request types and must be omitted by other request type.
> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 
>  
> Proposal:
> (1)   Remove the ‘RespondWith’ element from RequestAbstractType.
> (2)   Define a new abstract type RequestWithAbstractType that extends the
> RequestAbstractType and add the ‘RespondWith’ element as (one…unbounded) to
> extended type.
> (3)   Extend the following request types by RequestWithAbstractType
> LocateRequest, ValidateRequest, RegisterRequest, ReissueRequest, RevokeRequest,
> RecoverRequest.
>  
> Justification:
> (1)     Clearly defines which request types encode and require ‘RespondWith’
> elements and which request types do not. 
> (2)     Removes the optional ‘RespondWith’ element from request types that must
> not encode ‘RespondWith’ elements.
> (3)     Defines request types that must encode ‘RespondWith’ elements must use
> one or more.
> (4)     Should not break any current implementations.
> (5)     Allows the specification clearly state processing rules concerning
> ‘RespondWith’ by not having to deal with the ‘optional’ issue in the current
> schema.