RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging
"Burdett, David" <[email protected]> Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:36:07 -0800
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.services.ws-arch |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <C1E0143CD365A445A4417083BF6F42CC07E6EDB4@C1plenaexm07.commerceone.com> |
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2ED8E.00A50970 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Ugo makes a good point. If the WS-ReliableMessaging is tied up by IP as it is **at the moment**, then I reckon it won't get adopted if only because governments won't want the uncertainty associated with using software that is not universally and freely available. On the other hand this type of wording in a specification is quite common only to be later changed to something that would definitely be royalty free when submitted to a standards group, so right now I'm OK with the situation. I, personally, would be 100+% behind the Oasis WS-RM TC taking the WS ReliableMessaging and WS Reliability specifications on an equal basis, analysing them both and coming to a consensus on the way forward. But it does require submission of the WS ReliableMessaging spec to OASIS with the appropriate IP wording. My $0.02c. David -----Original Message----- From: Ugo Corda [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 2:24 PM To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); [email protected] Subject: RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging Well, talking about IPRs, the WS-ReliableMessaging Copyright Notice says that you can copy and display the spec, but "EXCEPT FOR THE COPYRIGHT LICENSE GRANTED ABOVE, THE AUTHORS DO NOT GRANT, EITHER EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY, A LICENSE TO ANY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, INCLUDING PATENTS, THEY OWN OR CONTROL." Ugo -----Original Message----- From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 1:25 PM To: Ugo Corda; David Orchard; [email protected] Subject: RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging Maybe this is a dumb question, but does it have to be "submitted to" the WS-TC for that TC to pick it up and use it? I seem to recall that there are no IPR hurdles in that spec. But I also agree with David Orchard said -- or at least my perception of it. Why the heck are we spending all this time discussing what an OASIS TC should be doing? If we really wanted to keep WS-RM in the W3C we could have aggressively gone after chartering a WG. I recall that a couple of F2F's ago we discussed doing the things that would lead in this direction and decided not to. I recall that one of the reasons at the time was that many people thought that this activity probably was better done in OASIS. Well, it's there now. End of story as far as I can see. Let's get on with what we are supposed to be doing. -----Original Message----- From: Ugo Corda [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 3:18 PM To: David Orchard; [email protected] Subject: RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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??? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. Am I the only one interested in seeing such a comparison? 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). 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, Ugo P.S. No need to answer if the rationale for publication is a political one (I can figure that out by myself ...). [1] http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2003-03-13-a.html <http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2003-03-13-a.html> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2ED8E.00A50970 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <TITLE>Message</TITLE> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1141" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><SPAN class=902434618-18032003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Ugo makes a good point. If the WS-ReliableMessaging is tied up by IP as it is **at the moment**, then I reckon it won't get adopted if only because governments won't want the uncertainty associated with using software that is not universally and freely available.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=902434618-18032003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=902434618-18032003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>On the other hand this type of wording in a specification is quite common only to be later changed to something that would definitely be royalty free when submitted to a standards group, so right now I'm OK with the situation.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=902434618-18032003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=902434618-18032003><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff size=2>I, personally, would be 100+% behind the Oasis WS-RM TC taking the WS ReliableMessaging and WS Reliability specifications on an <U>equal</U> basis, analysing them both and coming to a consensus on the way forward. But it does require submission of the WS ReliableMessaging spec to OASIS with the appropriate IP wording.</FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=902434618-18032003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=902434618-18032003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>My $0.02c.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=902434618-18032003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=902434618-18032003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>David</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Ugo Corda [mailto:[email protected]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, March 17, 2003 2:24 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); [email protected]<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=453102022-17032003>Well, talking about IPRs, the WS-ReliableMessaging Copyright Notice says that you can copy and display the spec, but </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=453102022-17032003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=453102022-17032003>"EXCEPT FOR THE COPYRIGHT LICENSE GRANTED ABOVE, THE AUTHORS DO NOT<BR>GRANT, EITHER EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY, A LICENSE TO ANY INTELLECTUAL<BR>PROPERTY, INCLUDING PATENTS, THEY OWN OR CONTROL."</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=453102022-17032003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=453102022-17032003>Ugo</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:[email protected]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, March 17, 2003 1:25 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Ugo Corda; David Orchard; [email protected]<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=585012021-17032003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Maybe this is a dumb question, but does it have to be "submitted to" the WS-TC for that TC to pick it up and use it? I seem to recall that there are no IPR hurdles in that spec.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=585012021-17032003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=585012021-17032003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>But I also agree with David Orchard said -- or at least my perception of it. Why the heck are we spending all this time discussing what an OASIS TC should be doing? If we really wanted to keep WS-RM in the W3C we could have aggressively gone after chartering a WG. I recall that a couple of F2F's ago we discussed doing the things that would lead in this direction and decided not to. I recall that one of the reasons at the time was that many people thought that this activity probably was better done in OASIS. Well, it's there now. End of story as far as I can see.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=585012021-17032003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=585012021-17032003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Let's get on with what we are supposed to be doing.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=585012021-17032003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Ugo Corda [mailto:[email protected]] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, March 17, 2003 3:18 PM<BR><B>To:</B> David Orchard; [email protected]<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=580580021-17032003>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. </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=580580021-17032003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=580580021-17032003>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. </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=580580021-17032003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=580580021-17032003>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.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=580580021-17032003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=580580021-17032003>Ugo</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]<B>On Behalf Of </B>David Orchard<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, March 17, 2003 12:40 PM<BR><B>To:</B> [email protected]<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=110452717-17032003>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. </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=110452717-17032003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=110452717-17032003>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. </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=110452717-17032003></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=110452717-17032003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=110452717-17032003>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. </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=110452717-17032003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=110452717-17032003><SPAN class=110452717-17032003>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???</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=110452717-17032003><SPAN class=110452717-17032003></SPAN></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=110452717-17032003> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=110452717-17032003>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. </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2><SPAN class=110452717-17032003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=110452717-17032003>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. </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=110452717-17032003></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=110452717-17032003></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=110452717-17032003></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=110452717-17032003></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT> </DIV></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=110452717-17032003>Cheers,</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=110452717-17032003>Dave</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, March 15, 2003 2:34 PM<BR><B>To:</B> [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Ugo Corda'; [email protected]<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=649212322-15032003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>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. </FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=649212322-15032003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=649212322-15032003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>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. </FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=649212322-15032003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=649212322-15032003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Anne</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, March 15, 2003 4:05 PM<BR><B>To:</B> [email protected]; 'Ugo Corda'; [email protected]<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=169085220-15032003><FONT face=Tahoma color=#0000ff size=2>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?</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=169085220-15032003><FONT face=Tahoma color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=169085220-15032003><FONT face=Tahoma color=#0000ff size=2>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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=169085220-15032003><FONT face=Tahoma color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=169085220-15032003><FONT face=Tahoma color=#0000ff size=2>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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=169085220-15032003><FONT face=Tahoma color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=169085220-15032003><FONT face=Tahoma color=#0000ff size=2>Am I the only one interested in seeing such a comparison?</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=169085220-15032003><FONT face=Tahoma color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=169085220-15032003><FONT face=Tahoma color=#0000ff size=2>arkin</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, March 15, 2003 12:46 PM<BR><B>To:</B> 'Ugo Corda'; [email protected]<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=167364420-15032003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I suggest you need to read the specs slower rather than quicker :-)</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Ugo Corda<BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, March 15, 2003 12:44 PM<BR><B>To:</B> [email protected]<BR><B>Subject:</B> Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><!-- Converted from text/rtf format --> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>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]).</FONT></P> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>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). </FONT></P> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Thank you,</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ugo</FONT> </P> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>P.S. No need to answer if the rationale for publication is a political one (I can figure that out by myself ...).</FONT> </P> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>[1] <A href="http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2003-03-13-a.html">http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2003-03-13-a.html</A></FONT> </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2ED8E.00A50970--