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

Re: D-AG0019 [RE: D-AG0007.1- defining reliable and stable WS ]

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 16:53:43 -0500
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020322215343.GI9174@jibboom.w3.org>
Hi Suresh.

* Damodaran, Suresh <Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com> [2002-03-21 17:42-0600]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hugo Haas [mailto:hugo@w3.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 7:06 PM
> [snip]
> I think that you disagree with the "reliable" part of the proposed
> requirement.  Hmmm... Rereading Suresh's email[1], reliability
> (guaranteed access as I understand Suresh's wording) does seem
> unreasonable; I had missed that in my first reading.
> <sd>
> My response to your comments on the definition. of reliability [1]
> "Reliable - A WS is reliable as long as accessing (SD: a very "loaded" term
> here) a WS is guaranteed under clearly specified conditions to all potential
> users."
> I was only providing a definition, not a requirement.
> Is this definition acceptable?
> Can WS-A define what constitutes reliability? Probably yes. Can WS-A require
> certain reliability for all its implementations? I would say no.

Service reliability is a fuzzy term in my head. As you pointed out,
reliability can crop up at different levels: service availability
(service level), reachability (messaging level), etc.

Requiring reliability seems unreasonable indeed.

In order to define reliability, I would have a look into reliable
messaging, which would be a messaging mechanism which would guarantee
the use of a service under certain terms.

I am basically unsure that we can separate the reliability of a Web
service and the reliability of the use/invokation of a Web service.

Service reliability as I would understand it would merely be, as Mark
was discussing it[2], about careful maintenance of Web resources:
advertisement of availability (e.g. use of HTTP's 503 error code[3]),
relocation (e.g. 301[4]), discontinuation (e.g. 410[5]), etc. Note
that we could have something in the architecture document recommending
such behaviors.



  2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Mar/0363.html
  3. http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.5.4
  4. http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.3.2
  5. http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.4.11
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ - tel:+1-617-452-2092
Received on Friday, 22 March 2002 16:53:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:55 UTC