RE: WS-Resource-Access FPWG

What about adding a note to the WS specs saying what the
reservations are? So that even if they publish stuff the
TAG origin might not like, we can limit the scope the damage?


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of
ashok malhotra
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:58 PM
Cc:; Bob Freund
Subject: Re: WS-Resource-Access FPWG

Personally, I think we should just let this go.  The TAG has bigger fish 
to fry.

If we do want to ask for something, we should ask WS-RA to define what 
happens if you send
an http GET to the URI in an EPR.  The answer should not be a 404 or a 
SOAP message.

All the best, Ashok wrote:
> I chatted with Bob a bit at the AC meeting this week.   We all know that 
> there have been some reservations on the part of individual TAG members 
> about about aspects of either WS-RA itself, or the ways in which WS-RA 
> uses technologies like WS-Addressing.  In particular, I've heard concerns 
> expressed about the extent to which WS-RA re-implements HTTP at a 
> different level and the stack, and also the possibility that WS-RA might 
> encourage the use of WSA reference parameters for identification.  If the 
> TAG does intend to raise such concerns against WS-RA formally, Bob 
> requests that we do so earlier rather than later.
> So, I would appreciate it if other TAG members would let me know whether 
> they wish to schedule discussion of such concerns.  I will collect 
> responses and, based on them, decide about discussion scheduling.   If I 
> get no such responses, I will (after doublechecking with the TAG) confirm 
> to Bob that we do not currently expect to raise such issues against WS-RA.

> Thank you.
> Noah
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn 
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
> Bob Freund <>
> Sent by:
> 03/23/2009 04:27 PM
>         To:
>         cc:, (bcc: Noah 
> Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
>         Subject:        WS-Resource-Access FPWG
> Dear TAG
> The WS-Resource-Access working group, on 2009-03-17 published the FPWD 
> of five specifications and has begun public review:
> WS-Transfer[1]
> WS-Resource-Transfer[2]
> WS-Eventing[3]
> WS-Enumeration[4]
> WS-Metadata-Exchange[5]
> Emails to all known groups in several organizations that may have an 
> interest in these specifications will be sent in the near future.
> Prior to the start of the WS-Resource-Access working group, a TAG 
> resolution[6] was published expressing concerns about several details 
> of some of these specifications, especially WS-Transfer.   Since the 
> WG is now under way, and on a tight nominal schedule, it would benefit 
> all involved if issues that might arise from your review were to be 
> created earlier rather than later.  It is my hope that all issues that 
> might be raised against fundamental aspects of any of these 
> specifications be created before Last Call if at all possible.
> To that end, would the TAG please respond with specific issues of 
> concern that in the opinion of the TAG need to be resolved in these 
> specifications at its earliest convenience.
> In any case, a response with issues, or a statement of no-issues would 
> be appreciated.
> thanks
> Bob Freund
> Chair, WS-Resource-Access Working Group
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
> [4]
> [5]
> [6]

Received on Thursday, 26 March 2009 04:18:40 UTC