W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > September 2003

RE: Send me Your Lists, Yearning to Breath Free ...

From: Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 15:48:34 -0700
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030912150011.025b5dd8@rgmamerimap.oraclecorp.com>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

At 12:53 PM 9/12/2003, David Orchard wrote:
>I like these ideas, with some updates.
>
>0. The list of specs and companies is easily derivable from the documents
>that have been posted.
>
>1.  When you say "individual", do you mean individual company or individual
>people?  I see no reason to hide the "company" aspect.
>
>2. We need to mellow much of the wording to be "fairer".  I also want to
>de-emphasize the "proprietary documents" vs "open standards" distinction.

Not a surprise :-)

I'd be interested in the reasoning behind characterizing a reasonably 
objective and impartial summary of the situation as "unfair".

>So I'd make your summary into something like:
>
>Reliable Messaging: A protocol that allows messages to be delivered reliably
>between distributed applications in the presence of software component,
>system, or network failures by implementing an acknowledgement
>infrastructure.
>Individual specifications and committees
>- Web Services Reliability
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=wsrm
><http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=wsrm>  OASIS TC.
>Based on WS-Reliability submission from Oracle, Sun and others (
>http://otn.oracle.com/tech/webservices/htdocs/spec/ws-reliability.html
><http://otn.oracle.com/tech/webservices/htdocs/spec/ws-reliability.html> )
>- WS-ReliableMessaging (
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dnglo
>bspec/html/ws-reliablemessaging.asp
><http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dngl
>obspec/html/ws-reliablemessaging.asp> ) from BEA Systems, Microsoft, IBM,
>Tibco.   Not currently being worked on in a typical standards body.

or any non-typical one.

As much as some of us might like to wish otherwise, until specifications 
are submitted to standards bodies (or otherwise made freely available via 
explicit licensing terms), they are proprietary.

cheers,
   jeff

>
>Cheers,
>Dave
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
>Behalf Of Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
>Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 7:46 AM
>To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
>Subject: RE: Send me Your Lists, Yearning to Breath Free ...
>
>
>I got a couple responses to this that indicate I was utterly unclear in what
>I am suggesting.  Sorry -- I think I was basing this too much on context
>established in the telcon, some of it off-line.  Let me try again.
>
>It was suggested on the telcon that the WG develop a list of standards
>efforts related to Web services.  One comment about the suggestion was to
>question whether anyone was willing to do the work.  I am sort of
>volunteering to do the following:
>
>All of us seem to have made such lists for internal use, but many seem to
>view at least aspects of this work as confidential.  On the other hand, the
>landscape is complex and we could all probably benefit from combining our
>knowledge.  I know that I certainly would.  So I am sort of proposing an,
>"I'll show you mine if you show me yours".  More specifically, if people
>send me their lists of standards efforts, suitably edited if you like to
>remove sensitive information, I will commit to do the following (if I am
>able -- I say this in case I get input expressed in a way that I can't
>figure out how to handle):
>
>1 - Combine them in such a way that individual authorship is more or less
>disguised.
>
>2 - Remove any statements that seem unwise to make public.  For example, if
>I get, "That spec mostly comes from IBM and they're all clueless doofuses
>there", I will chuckle privately but it ain't gonna get through.
>
>3 - Circulate the combined product to the contributors for comment before
>making public.
>
>4 - Keep the original submissions private.
>
>5 - Respect requests NOT to use a submission unless there are a critical
>number, Nc, of submissions.  I suggest Nc=3 might be reasonable.
>
>6 - Use my own list (which is not all that great) as one of the submissions.
>
>Note that the commitment to confidentiality applies within my company,
>subject to the following:
>
>A - If push comes to shove I'm not sure I can withhold information from my
>employer that I develop on their time.  I can't imagine, however, how this
>would become relevant.  I'm certainly not going to handle anything
>confidential inside CVX in a way that would be likely to leak out.
>
>B - If under 5 above I get a submission I can't use, of course if I learn
>something from it I ain't gonna try to forget it.
>
>To be more specific about what submissions might look at, here is an entry
>from my list about reliable messaging (which seems to be the example we keep
>using).  Note that it contains URL's, a brief summary of what it's about,
>and some comments about relative maturity and relationship to other specs.
>(I'm not sure if the URL's are going to come through properly to the mailing
>list, but in the version I have copied below the URL's are links).
>
><example>
>Web Services Reliable Messaging
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=wsrm
><http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=wsrm> .  A
>protocol that allows messages to be delivered reliably between distributed
>applications in the presence of software component, system, or network
>failures by implementing an acknowledgement infrastructure.  Based on
>WS-Reliability submission from Oracle, Sun and others (
>http://otn.oracle.com/tech/webservices/htdocs/spec/ws-reliability.html
><http://otn.oracle.com/tech/webservices/htdocs/spec/ws-reliability.html> )
>A competing spec called WS-ReliableMessaging (
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dnglo
>bspec/html/ws-reliablemessaging.asp
><http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dngl
>obspec/html/ws-reliablemessaging.asp> ) from Microsoft, IBM, BEA and others
>has not yet been submitted to any organization.   The two specs are, in
>substance, pretty similar (
>http://xml.coverpages.org/ChappellReliability20030313.html
><http://xml.coverpages.org/ChappellReliability20030313.html> )
></example>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
>Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 3:37 PM
>To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
>Subject: Send me Your Lists, Yearning to Breath Free ...
>
>
>
>As a followon from off-line discussions on IRC in the telcon today -- it
>seems that most of us have our own lists of Web services specification
>efforts, both formal and informal, with some sort of characterization or
>description of what they are about.  I have one, but it ain't very good or
>complete.  Some of these efforts I can find but I don't really understand
>what they are about -- and I think there are others that I'm missing.  If
>anybody wants to send me their list, suitably edited if you like to take out
>confidential information, I would be glad to try to correlate, combine them
>with mine and send the result back to the mailserver.
>
>

Jeff Mischkinsky                      jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
Consulting Member Technical Staff     +1(650)506-1975
Director, Web Services Standards      500 Oracle Parkway M/S 4OP9
Oracle Corporation                    Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Received on Friday, 12 September 2003 20:48:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:22 GMT