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 11:33:05 -0700
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E2EAEC1@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "'Geoff Arnold'" <Geoff.Arnold@Sun.COM>, "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org

OK by me.  I was just giving it a shot, for what it was worth.  Perhaps you
could flesh out a better explanation of what reliable messaging is?  As I
keep saying, I think it is important because there is a very widespread
perception that security and reliable messaging are the hot spots for making
web services practically usable for business processes.  The requirements
doc talks a lot about security ...

-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Arnold [mailto:Geoff.Arnold@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 12:49 PM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: Champions for Draft-status requirements? / D-AC017


On Wednesday, August 28, 2002, at 01:06  PM, Cutler, Roger 
(RogerCutler) wrote:

>  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".

The phrase "practically acceptable level" seems to be inviting trouble. Why
not simply talk about measurable reliability levels (i.e. QoS)?

Curious,

Geoff
Received on Wednesday, 28 August 2002 14:33:17 GMT

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