W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-swap@w3.org > October 1998

RE: SWAP WG Charter -- Second iteration

From: Michael Oliver <ollie@opentext.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 05:45:48 -0700
To: "Keith Moore" <moore@cs.utk.edu>, "Jon Pyke" <gfd67@dial.pipex.com>
Cc: "Surendra Reddy" <skreddy@us.oracle.com>, "Fernstrom, Christer" <Christer.Fernstrom@xrce.xerox.com>, <swap-wg@netscape.com>, <ietf-swap@w3.org>, <paf@swip.net>
Message-ID: <005901bdf44b$e7b44ec0$4265ecd0@olient>
I would add that one of the benefits of an IETF effort is the input we as
proponents of SWAP, will get from IETF members that are not part of WfMC.
It has been suggested that the WfMC IF4 with MIME, HTTP(i.e. SWAP) AND OMG
BO bindings are adequate.  But without the OMG member's input or the IETF
input how can we ensure we have considered all the aspects?

Michael Oliver
Senior Technical Research Engineer
Product Marketing
Open Text Corporation
7391 S. BullRider Ave.
Tucson, AZ 85747
(520)574-8272 Voice
(520)574-8273 Fax
ollie@opentext.com
http://www.opentext.com

-----Original Message-----
From:	ietf-swap-request@w3.org [mailto:ietf-swap-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Keith Moore
Sent:	Tuesday, October 06, 1998 9:19 AM
To:	Jon Pyke
Cc:	Surendra Reddy; Fernstrom,   Christer; swap-wg@netscape.com;
ietf-swap@w3.org; moore@cs.utk.edu; paf@swip.net; moore@cs.utk.edu
Subject:	Re: SWAP WG Charter -- Second iteration

> Perhaps I'm losing the plot along the way - I thought SWAP was aimed at
> being a workflow standard - if that's so then I think there is value in
> working with or as part of WfMC - SWAP would make an excellent extension
to
> IF4, which I thought was the original intention.

It's fine if the work is technically sound and the WG wants to go that
way, but I'm not going to impose that constraint,  and I'll lobby hard
to keep other IESG or IAB folks from imposing that constraint.

It's been my experience that other standards organizations, especially
"industry standard" organizations often produce large amounts of garbage.
This isn't a comment on the WfMC stuff, since I haven't evaluated it.
But in general I'm not going to insist that an IETF working group adhere
to the work of some other body, unless that work is known to be of
unimpeachable quality.

Keith
Received on Saturday, 10 October 1998 08:47:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 22 March 2009 02:44:17 GMT