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

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

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 13:32:40 -0500
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E0313277D@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Jeff Mischkinsky" <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>, "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org

Incidentally, I'm all in favor of "mellowing" these descriptions to
whatever extent seems appropriate to all concerned.  What I'm much MORE
interested in is getting SOMETHING on the table.

If nobody sends me anything I think that we can fairly consider this
idea to be dead, don't you?

Come on, folks -- I'm not representing a competitor in this space and
I've given you plenty of options for confidentiality/control.  I think
you can send me this stuff without a real lot of risk.

Oh, sorry -- in answer to David's question:  I meant "disguise
individual authorship" as both company and person.  That is, I would
combine inputs so that the result is just a list with descriptions, not,
"BEA says that specs from IBM are usually substandard", or "BEA says
that the WS-ReliableMessaging spec is better that the WS-Reliability
spec because ...".

I guess that there is another possibility, which I really do not like
very much.  I could post a list that I make myself and let you folk pick
it to pieces.  I don't like this because it would be personally
embarrassing, but I suppose I could give it a try.  I really would
prefer, however, to do a little work privately working in input from
people who know more than I do about this stuff.  I mean, do you really
want to see my entry saying that I am clueless about what the XXX effort
is doing?

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Mischkinsky [mailto:jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 5:49 PM
To: David Orchard; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Send me Your Lists, Yearning to Breath Free ...



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 Sunday, 14 September 2003 14:33:06 GMT

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