W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > August 2002

RE: Champions for Draft-status requirements? / D-AC017

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:06:39 -0700
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E2EAEBF@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "'jones@research.att.com'" <jones@research.att.com>, Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com, "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org

One of the reasons that I posted an attempt at defining reliable messaging
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Aug/0218.html) is that
I feel that the ebXML spec on reliable messaging is flawed because I think a
reasonable person would infer from its language that the spec guarantees
something that it does not, and because the discussion of reliable messaging
in the body of the document incorrectly ignores the third potential endstate
of my definition attempt.  This is, in my view, an actual error in the
documentation.  I am not saying that there is anything wrong with the
protocol that they define, I am saying that there is a problem in their
documentation of it.  One of the solutions to this problem, I think, is to
define reliable messaging a bit more accurately, for example by replacing
terms like "reliably exchange" (below) with something like "reduce the
uncertainty of the message transmission to a practically acceptable level".

-----Original Message-----
From: jones@research.att.com [mailto:jones@research.att.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 3:51 PM
To: Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com; RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com;
www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Champions for Draft-status requirements? / D-AC017



Although I am no expert on ebXML, the ebXML messaging spec discusses
reliable messaging.  At least in the sense that it is used in that context,
maybe we can modify D-AC017 in that direction.  Here is a quote from the
ebXML Message Service Specification v2.0 [1], p. 35:
  "Reliable Messaging defines an interoperable protocol such that two
   Message Service handlers (MSH) can reliably exchange messages, using
   acknowledgement, retry and duplicate detection and elimination
   mechanisms, resulting in the To Party receiving the message
   Once-And-Only-Once.  The protocol is flexible, allowing for both
   store-and-forward and end-to-end-messaging."

This is an obviously useful feature, particularly for e-Business.  In the
above sense, it seems doable (it is part of the ebXML spec.)  It is not
clear to me why it would not fit well with our other requirements.

My $0.02.

--mark

Mark A. Jones
AT&T Labs
Shannon Laboratory
Room 2A-02
180 Park Ave.
Florham Park, NJ  07932-0971

email: jones@research.att.com
phone: (973) 360-8326
  fax: (973) 236-6453


	From: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
	To: "'Champion, Mike'" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>,
www-ws-arch@w3.org
	Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 12:24:38 -0700
	Subject: RE: Champions for Draft-status requirements? / D-AC017

	Mike has asked me to repeat, or refer to, my previous posting on
D-AC017
	(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Aug/0229.html).
The
	bottom line is that my reading of the "sense of the workgroup" is
that
	D-AC017 as a whole should probably go away.  HOWEVER, if this
happens there
	would be no mention whatsoever in the requirements doc of reliable
messaging
	and I think that would be a "VERY BAD THING".  So I am proposing
replacing
	D-AC017 with some statement that says something about reliable
messaging
	which might appear on its own or under another heading (like perhaps
AC-006,
	"security" --> "security and reliability" ??).

	Here is D-AC017:

	D-AC017 provides guidance for the development of the Web services
	infrastructure needed to implement common business functions in a
	standards-based environment.

	D-AR017.1 The Web services Architecture must support common business
	functions, to the extent that those functions are defined in similar
	methodologies such as EDI.

	D-AR017.2 The Web services Architecture must support reliable
messaging and
	routing.

	D-AR017.3 The Web services Architecture must support unique message
IDs and
	message sequencing.

	D-AR017.4 The Web services Architecture must support reliable
transaction
	processing.

	Copying from the previous posting:

	1 - I believe that I was the champion of this Critical Success
Factor.

	2 - I recall that I got a chance to make a case for the AC and,
although the
	general idea that web services should do something along these lines
is
	popular, there was very little positive response for these specific
AC's.  I
	believe that the feeling was that they are stated in a way that does
not
	mesh well with other requirements and that the objectives are really
covered
	in the Usage Cases.

	3 - Since there was talk on the last con-call of "for-sure" getting
the
	requirements finished at the F2F, and there was support for the
concept of
	"if we can't agree drop it" -- or something along these lines -- I
think
	that there is a good chance that all of D-AC017 is headed for
oblivion.

	My personal reaction, as the "champion", is that I still like
D-AC017
	because it accurately and succinctly expresses what my personal
major
	success criterion is for the WG.  However, I feel that I had my
chance to
	make my case, was listened to and did not obviously convince
anybody.  Under
	those circumstances I am hardly likely to object to it being
dropped, and in
	fact I would propose it myself.

	Soooo -- one thing I am saying is:  IF YOU REALLY LIKE D-AC017 YOU'D
BETTER
	SAY SO REAL SOON.

	But there is another potential issue that I think may be much more
	important.  As the requirement document stands, D-AC017 is the ONLY
place
	that mentions "reliable messaging".  If it is dropped ... well, I
don't
	think that it is reasonable for the requirements not to mention
reliable
	messaging at all.  I believe that it has been very commonly
expressed by
	many people in many forums that the two most important issues that
need to
	be resolved in order to use web services in business settings are
getting
	agreement on how to handle security and reliable messaging.  I think
that
	reliable messaging MUST be mentioned somehow or the WG will lose
essential
	credibility.

	If D-AC017 is dropped I would be, if it's the best we can do,
satisfied with
	something like, "The working group MUST address the issue of
reliable
	messaging", which would leave open such deeply unsatisfying
solutions as,
	"Reliable messaging is not possible," or "Reliable messaging is not
a part
	of web services architecture" -- but I really don't think that we
can just
	not mention it at all.


	-----Original Message-----
	From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] 
	Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 2:32 PM
	To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
	Subject: Champions for Draft-status requirements?


	[snip]

	It looks like there are 4 goals with draft status, and
	three of those have CSF's with draft status associated
	with them: D-AC001, D-AC016, D-AC017, and D-AC018.
	Also, AC006 is agreed on, but some of its CSFs are 
	still in draft status.

	It would be nice to have volunteers to take these
	on.  I would expect it to take about one hour for each
	to dig through the archives, look at the votes and
	comments, and propose a sensible resolution.

	[snip]
Received on Wednesday, 28 August 2002 13:06:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:04 GMT