Sunil:
-----Original Message-----
From: Sunil Kunisetty
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21,
2004 11:54 AM
To: Jacques Durand
Cc:
Subject: Re: [wsrm] [REL-49]proposal for
REL-49
Hi
Jacque,
My assumption was that the absence of
this attribute does automatically imply usage="optional"
since the
presence of this (ServiceConfig) extensibility element itself indicate that
Service will support
RM capabilities. Having said that, I'm okay
with adding "optional" as another value of this attribute.
[Jacques
Durand] I see. I still prefer to encourage the explicit value "optional"
(which could still be the default).
So I'll clarify the scoping rules and will add this attribute to all
the 3 sub-elements.
Btw, we haven't finally decided at the F2F whether we wanted this to
be normative or non-normative.
What's your take on this?
[Jacques
Durand] non-normative seems more appropriate for now I think, unless we
are sure to get everything right... (WS definitions won't be easily changeable
after)
-Sunil
