Subject: Re: Models: preservation of user information

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:53:49 -0800

At 10:26 AM 1/31/2003, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>Christopher Oliva writes:
>> I would prefer mandating servers to return the exact value that was
>> originally added (when there are no explicit constraints in the schema
>> definition for that item).
>
>Well, that has been shot down, but maybe this sentence in [Models] 6.1:
>
>  Where such requirements have not be explicitly stated, servers SHOULD 
>  preserve the value of user information but MAY return the value in a 
>  different form. 
>
>can be strengthened a little:  Append
>
>  ..."provided that the implementation documents possible divergences."

Interoperability should not depend on the availability
of documentation of implementations.

---

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:26:18 +0100

-- 
Hallvard

---

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 21:21:16 +0100

> of documentation of implementations. 

Interoperability?  If an implementation modifies values without
documenting that, you have the same interoperability as without that
requirement.  You just don't have a standard-conforming implementation.
Or if you are thinking of X.500 gateways and things like that, where
it's hard to say just what values will be changed, the implementation
could just cop out by documenting that any values may change.

My point was just that if documentation is required, users who need
unchanged values for some particular attribute can at least know
if an implementation provides what they want.

Anyway, must rush.  Off to vacation.  For real, this time:-)

-- 
Hallvard

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:56:36 -0800

At 12:21 PM 1/31/2003, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>My point was just that if documentation is required,

To require a implementor to document their behavior
implies that that another implementor must depend on
this documentation to achieve interoperability.  That
is counter to the production of technical specifications
intended to allow independent development of interoperable
implementations.

>Anyway, must rush.  Off to vacation.  For real, this time:-)

Enjoy!  Kurt