RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging
"Ugo Corda" <[email protected]> Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:18:16 -0800
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.services.ws-arch |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2ECCA.B9FEFFED Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am personally not concerned at all whether reliability is handled by = OASIS instead of W3C. What really worries me in general is that = duplicate work is being done in competing groups. The publication of = WS-ReliableMessaging without any clear indication of plans to converge = with the OASIS work (publication made, by the way, by companies that, as = far as I know, are not part of the OASIS reliability TC so far) = definitely raised my worries quite a bit.=20 =20 If you say that there is a good possibility that WS-ReliableMessaging = will be submitted to the OASIS reliability TC, that makes me feel = better. But I'll be looking for concrete actions and not just words.=20 =20 By the way, it puzzles me that this submission has not yet occurred, if = the authors indeed contemplate that possibility. The OASIS TC just = started its work, and this would be a great time for submission: members = could start right away to look at both specs and get the best of both, = instead of starting work in one direction and having to change course = later. =20 Ugo -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On = Behalf Of David Orchard Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 12:40 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Questions prompted by the publication of = WS-ReliableMessaging I think that companies working on WS-ReliableMessaging bodes well for = the widespread adoption of an sigle, open, RF, interoperable reliability = specification that architects well with other Web service = specifications. =20 =20 What I'm really surprised by is the pushback that people are giving on = the possibility that ws-rm won't automatically go to the oasis = ws-reliability TC. One of the biggest differences between the W3C and = OASIS is that the W3C has a community review process for new working = groups. The goal at the W3C being to have a charter for a working group = that all the W3C Members can live with and is technically consistent = with other works in progress. Indeed, the work that the W3C Team and = member companies do to come up with such a charter and then the 4 week = AC review period are the biggest contributors to the length of time to = form a Working Group, IMO. OASIS has no such intent or process. =20 =20 If you like forming WG's quickly, you can't ALSO want there to be = consensus in the industry around a single Working Group and it's = charter. Time to market or consensus, pick one. =20 =20 Continuing the community review of charters a little further, TC's can = arbitrarily change their charter without a community review. The IP = issues around changes in charters alone gives me the willies, like how = the heck do you do early IP disclosure if the charter can change??? =20 Further, individual members of OASIS don't treat TC formation as a = "first to pole wins" wrt charters. OASIS provides a place for like = minded individuals to do work. It has no structure for insisting on = consistency or relationship between TCs or other groups. Though such is = certainly permitted, pending whether the individuals choose to. =20 =20 Surely these differences in processes and their plus and minues have = been obvious for years now and people shouldn't be surprised by what can = happen, or that it automatically means something *bad* for Web services. = If people have reservations about the OASIS process, then talking about = it on w3c ws-arch seems like it would need to get moved off of the w3c = pretty fast. I'm ok with talking about the impact of various processes = on web services architecture for a while, but it's probably something = that needs to be wrapped up quickly. Finally, people seem to like the = OASIS process as lots of work is being done there. =20 =20 Cheers, Dave -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 2:34 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Ugo Corda'; = [email protected] Subject: RE: Questions prompted by the publication of = WS-ReliableMessaging There are differences. The primary difference that I see (after a quick = glance) is that WS-ReliableMessaging relies on/works with WS-Policy and = the other GXA specifications. WS-Reliability is a standalone SOAP = extension. Also, WS-ReliableMessaging has defined Addressability = separately (which decouples asynchronicity from reliability). I think = that WS-ReliableMessaging and WS-Addressability are better, more = flexible, more thorough, more comprehensive specifications. Even so, the = specs address exactly the same problem space.=20 =20 The primary difference is political. The authors of WS-ReliableMessaging = have not signed up to participate in the WS-RM TC. I'm not sure that = it's a given that the authors will submit it to the WS-RM TC. I'd say = that it bodes badly for the standardization effort.=20 =20 Anne -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 4:05 PM To: [email protected]; 'Ugo Corda'; [email protected] Subject: RE: Questions prompted by the publication of = WS-ReliableMessaging I agree with Ugo. Reading through the abstract it's obvious that we have = two specifications that solve the same problem. Is there a value in = that? =20 I actually dug deeper into the specs and I can tell that there are some = differences. But most of us don't have the time to compare green apples = to red apples. It would have been much easier if someone could present a = list of the difference. If WS-ReliableMessaging does something better = than WS-RM then clearly it could be summarized in two pages and = presented to the WS community so we can judge. =20 Maybe they are so different that we need to have both. I don't see that, = but a more educated explanation would help. Maybe the changes are minor, = in which case such a comparison could help the OASIS TC in addressing = the problem of reliable messaging in a much better way. =20 Am I the only one interested in seeing such a comparison? =20 arkin -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 12:46 PM To: 'Ugo Corda'; [email protected] Subject: RE: Questions prompted by the publication of = WS-ReliableMessaging I suggest you need to read the specs slower rather than quicker :-) -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On = Behalf Of Ugo Corda Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 12:44 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging Probably most people in the group have had a chance by now to see this = week's announcement of the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging (see = [1]). After a quick reading of the spec, I have to say that I don't see any = major architectural/technical differences compared to the OASIS = WS-ReliableMessaging TC activity and its input document WS-Reliability = (or at least differences big enough to justify going a completely = separate way).=20 I really hope that some WSA members whose companies published the new = reliability spec can help me clarify the previous point and provide some = architectural/technical rationale for the separate publication. Thank you,=20 Ugo=20 P.S. No need to answer if the rationale for publication is a political = one (I can figure that out by myself ...).=20 [1] http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2003-03-13-a.html=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2ECCA.B9FEFFED Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <TITLE>Questions prompted by the publication of = WS-ReliableMessaging</TITLE> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1141" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D580580021-17032003>I am = personally not=20 concerned at all whether reliability is handled by OASIS instead=20 of W3C. What really worries me in general is that duplicate work is = being=20 done in competing groups. The publication of WS-ReliableMessaging = without=20 any clear indication of plans to converge with the OASIS work=20 (publication made, by the way, by companies that, as far as I know, are = not part=20 of the OASIS reliability TC so far) definitely raised my worries quite a = bit.=20 </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D580580021-17032003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D580580021-17032003>If you = say that=20 there is a good possibility that WS-ReliableMessaging will be submitted = to the=20 OASIS reliability TC, that makes me feel better. But I'll = be looking for=20 concrete actions and not just words. </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D580580021-17032003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D580580021-17032003>By the = way, it=20 puzzles me that this submission has not yet occurred, if the = authors indeed=20 contemplate that possibility. The OASIS TC just started its = work, and this=20 would be a great time for submission: members could start right away to = look at=20 both specs and get the best of both, instead of starting work in one = direction=20 and having to change course later.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D580580021-17032003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D580580021-17032003>Ugo</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20 style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px = solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT = face=3DTahoma=20 size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> = [email protected]=20 [mailto:[email protected]]<B>On Behalf Of </B>David=20 Orchard<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, March 17, 2003 12:40 PM<BR><B>To:</B>=20 [email protected]<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Questions prompted by the=20 publication of WS-ReliableMessaging<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN = class=3D110452717-17032003>I=20 think that companies working on WS-ReliableMessaging bodes well = for the=20 widespread adoption of an sigle, open, RF, interoperable reliability=20 specification that architects well with other Web=20 service specifications. </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D110452717-17032003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN = class=3D110452717-17032003>What=20 I'm really surprised by is the pushback that people are giving on the=20 possibility that ws-rm won't automatically go to the oasis = ws-reliability=20 TC. One of the biggest differences between the W3C and = OASIS is=20 that the W3C has a community review process for new working = groups. The=20 goal at the W3C being to have a charter for a working group that all = the W3C=20 Members can live with and is technically consistent with other works = in=20 progress. Indeed, the work that the W3C Team and member=20 companies do to come up with such a charter and then the 4 week = AC review=20 period are the biggest contributors to the length of time to form a = Working=20 Group, IMO. OASIS has no such intent or process. =20 </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D110452717-17032003></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2><SPAN class=3D110452717-17032003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN = class=3D110452717-17032003>If=20 you like forming WG's quickly, you can't ALSO want there to be = consensus in=20 the industry around a single Working Group and it's charter. = Time to=20 market or consensus, pick one. </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D110452717-17032003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D110452717-17032003><SPAN class=3D110452717-17032003>Continuing = the=20 community review of charters a little further, TC's can arbitrarily = change=20 their charter without a community review. The IP issues around = changes=20 in charters alone gives me the willies, like how the heck do you do = early=20 IP disclosure if the charter can = change???</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D110452717-17032003><SPAN=20 class=3D110452717-17032003></SPAN></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN = class=3D110452717-17032003> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D110452717-17032003>Further, individual members of OASIS don't=20 treat TC formation as a "first to pole wins" wrt charters. = OASIS=20 provides a place for like minded individuals to do work. It = has no=20 structure for insisting on consistency or relationship between TCs or = other=20 groups. Though such is certainly permitted, pending whether the=20 individuals choose to. </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D110452717-17032003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D110452717-17032003>Surely these differences in processes and = their plus=20 and minues have been obvious for years now and people shouldn't = be=20 surprised by what can happen, or that it automatically means=20 something *bad* for Web services. If people have = reservations=20 about the OASIS process, then talking about it on w3c ws-arch=20 seems like it would need to get moved off of the w3c pretty=20 fast. I'm ok with talking about the impact of various processes = on web=20 services architecture for a while, but it's probably something that = needs to=20 be wrapped up quickly. Finally, people seem to like the OASIS = process as=20 lots of work is being done there. </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D110452717-17032003></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2><SPAN class=3D110452717-17032003></SPAN></FONT><FONT = face=3DArial=20 color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN = class=3D110452717-17032003></SPAN></FONT><FONT=20 face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 = class=3D110452717-17032003></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT> </DIV></DIV>= <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D110452717-17032003>Cheers,</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D110452717-17032003>Dave</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20 style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px = solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT = face=3DTahoma=20 size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> = [email protected]=20 [mailto:[email protected]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, March = 15, 2003=20 2:34 PM<BR><B>To:</B> [email protected];=20 [email protected]; 'Ugo Corda';=20 [email protected]<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Questions prompted by the=20 publication of WS-ReliableMessaging<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D649212322-15032003><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2>There are differences. The primary difference that I see = (after a=20 quick glance) is that WS-ReliableMessaging relies on/works with = WS-Policy=20 and the other GXA specifications. WS-Reliability is a standalone = SOAP=20 extension. Also, WS-ReliableMessaging has defined Addressability = separately=20 (which decouples asynchronicity from reliability). I think that=20 WS-ReliableMessaging and WS-Addressability are better, more = flexible,=20 more thorough, more comprehensive specifications. Even so, the specs = address=20 exactly the same problem space. </FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D649212322-15032003><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D649212322-15032003><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2>The primary difference is political. The authors of=20 WS-ReliableMessaging have not signed up to participate in the WS-RM = TC. I'm=20 not sure that it's a given that the authors will submit it to the = WS-RM TC.=20 I'd say that it bodes badly for the standardization effort.=20 </FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D649212322-15032003><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D649212322-15032003><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2>Anne</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20 style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff = 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT = face=3DTahoma=20 size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>=20 [email protected]=20 [mailto:[email protected]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, = March 15,=20 2003 4:05 PM<BR><B>To:</B> [email protected]; 'Ugo = Corda';=20 [email protected]<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Questions prompted by = the=20 publication of WS-ReliableMessaging<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D169085220-15032003><FONT face=3DTahoma = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2>I agree with Ugo. Reading through the abstract it's = obvious that we=20 have two specifications that solve the same problem. Is there a = value in=20 that?</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D169085220-15032003><FONT face=3DTahoma = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D169085220-15032003><FONT face=3DTahoma = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2>I actually dug deeper into the specs and I can tell that = there are=20 some differences. But most of us don't have the time to compare = green=20 apples to red apples. It would have been much easier if someone = could=20 present a list of the difference. If WS-ReliableMessaging does = something=20 better than WS-RM then clearly it could be summarized in two pages = and=20 presented to the WS community so we can judge.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D169085220-15032003><FONT face=3DTahoma = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D169085220-15032003><FONT face=3DTahoma = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2>Maybe they are so different that we need to have both. I = don't see=20 that, but a more educated explanation would help. Maybe the = changes are=20 minor, in which case such a comparison could help the OASIS TC in=20 addressing the problem of reliable messaging in a much better=20 way.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D169085220-15032003><FONT face=3DTahoma = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D169085220-15032003><FONT face=3DTahoma = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2>Am I the only one interested in seeing such a=20 comparison?</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D169085220-15032003><FONT face=3DTahoma = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D169085220-15032003><FONT face=3DTahoma = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2>arkin</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20 style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff = 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT = face=3DTahoma=20 size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>=20 [email protected]=20 [mailto:[email protected]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, = March 15,=20 2003 12:46 PM<BR><B>To:</B> 'Ugo Corda';=20 [email protected]<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Questions prompted by = the=20 publication of WS-ReliableMessaging<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D167364420-15032003><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2>I suggest you need to read the specs slower rather than = quicker=20 :-)</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20 style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: = #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT = face=3DTahoma=20 size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>=20 [email protected] = [mailto:[email protected]]<B>On=20 Behalf Of </B>Ugo Corda<BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, March 15, = 2003 12:44=20 PM<BR><B>To:</B> [email protected]<BR><B>Subject:</B> = Questions=20 prompted by the publication of=20 WS-ReliableMessaging<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><!-- Converted from = text/rtf format --> <P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Probably most people in the = group have had=20 a chance by now to see this week's announcement of the = publication of=20 WS-ReliableMessaging (see [1]).</FONT></P> <P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>After a quick reading of the = spec, I have=20 to say that I don't see any major architectural/technical = differences=20 compared to the OASIS WS-ReliableMessaging TC activity and its = input=20 document WS-Reliability (or at least differences big enough to = justify=20 going a completely separate way). </FONT></P> <P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I really hope that some WSA = members whose=20 companies published the new reliability spec can help me = clarify the=20 previous point and provide some architectural/technical = rationale for=20 the separate publication.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thank you,</FONT> <BR><FONT = face=3DArial=20 size=3D2>Ugo</FONT> </P> <P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>P.S. No need to answer if the = rationale for=20 publication is a political one (I can figure that out by = myself=20 ...).</FONT> </P> <P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>[1] <A=20 = href=3D"http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2003-03-13-a.html">http://xml.coverpa= ges.org/ni2003-03-13-a.html</A></FONT>=20 = </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BO= DY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2ECCA.B9FEFFED--