RE: Champions for Draft-status requirements?

"Sedukhin, Igor" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.web.services.ws-arch
Message-ID <[email protected]>
I don't think reliable messaging falls under AC-0018, which is
management-related.
I agree with Roger that "reliable messaging" is a feature of the
protocol, similar to message integrity, privacy, non-repudiation, etc.

-- Igor Sedukhin .. ([email protected])
-- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788


-----Original Message-----
From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 3:13 PM
To: 'Hugo Haas'; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Champions for Draft-status requirements?



I would not have thought so, personally -- but perhaps it might.  There
is a phrase about "service level agreements", and I guess this sounds
like it is somewhere in the same ballpark ... But to me "reliable
messaging" has something to do with a messaging protocol more than an
agreement or "managing" web services.  I did try to define "reliable
messaging" in an earlier posting
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Aug/0218.html),
since nobody else was responding to the invitation to do so.  

One thing I am sure of, however, is that the phrase "reliable messaging"
does not appear anywhere in the requirements doc other than D-AC017.  If
you look at the early-draft architecture doc you will see that there is
all sorts of stuff popping up about this, and lots of people have
expressed concern about the subject -- so it wouldn't seem to me that
having something in the requirements about it would be very hard to
follow through on.

-----Original Message-----
From: Hugo Haas [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 3:47 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Champions for Draft-status requirements?


* Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <[email protected]>
[2002-08-22 12:40-0700]
> Basically I'm willing to let it go and it seems to me that the sense
> of the group is moving this way, with the exception that I am REALLY 
> opposed to letting go completely the subject of reliable messaging.  
> If D-AC017 went away there would be no mention of reliable messaging 
> whatever in the requirements, and I think that this would be very 
> inappropriate given the level of interest and priority that is widely 
> put on this subject.  So I am basically proposing getting rid of 
> D-AC017 but adding something specifically about reliable messaging.

Doesn't AC018, with its fairly large umbrella, cover reliable messaging?

Regards,

Hugo

-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:[email protected] - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.