Re: Message Header Spec - terminology

[mwsachs@us.ibm.com]

Scott,

I agree that interoperability is a never-ending problem, especially in the
computer industry where the standards are pretty complex. In Fibre Channel,
there are so many options that some product areas developed their own
"profiles" stating what must be supported by vendors in those areas.

Nonetheless, a draft standard should take a position on what is optional
and to whom in order to eliminate ambiguity and focus whatever
interoperability arguments take place.

In the absence of better suggestions, the tpaML draft which opens its
standardization discussions will state that it complies with RFC2119 except
for the word "optional".  "Optional" will be defined in the DTD sense and
it will say that the optional tags shall be supported by all vendors except
where it is stated to the contrary in the descriptions of specific tags.  I
suggest that similar words be considered for the message header spec.

Regards,
Marty

*************************************************************************************

IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************