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

RE: [RTF] AR007.1.2 proposal to WSA WG

From: Damodaran, Suresh <Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 21:59:02 -0500
Message-ID: <40AC2C8FB855D411AE0200D0B7458B2B07C5983E@scidalmsg01.csg.stercomm.com>
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: "Wsa-public (E-mail)" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

This proposal is to resolve the concerns as discussed in [1].
Instead of explicitly stating the said items, RTF chose to refer to them.


Sterling Commerce   
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Jun/0184.html

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 9:17 PM
To: Damodaran, Suresh
Cc: Wsa-public (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [RTF] AR007.1.2 proposal to WSA WG

On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 08:43:13PM -0500, Damodaran, Suresh wrote:
> RTF proposes that the accepted proposal [1] be augmented
> with  the following per [2]
> D-AR007.1.2: Reliability of Web Service Architecture is enabled by
> D-AC008,D-AC011,D-AR012.5 and D-AR012.7

Should this even be a requirement, because it doesn't seem measurable
("is enabled by")?  Then again, it doesn't even seem like a CSF or a

Couldn't we just list this as a note or in a box or something like that,
without labelling it as a goal, requirement, or CSF?

Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2002 22:59:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:57 UTC