- From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 12:24:38 -0700
- To: "'Champion, Mike'" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Mike has asked me to repeat, or refer to, my previous posting on D-AC017 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Aug/0229.html). The bottom line is that my reading of the "sense of the workgroup" is that D-AC017 as a whole should probably go away. HOWEVER, if this happens there would be no mention whatsoever in the requirements doc of reliable messaging and I think that would be a "VERY BAD THING". So I am proposing replacing D-AC017 with some statement that says something about reliable messaging which might appear on its own or under another heading (like perhaps AC-006, "security" --> "security and reliability" ??). Here is D-AC017: D-AC017 provides guidance for the development of the Web services infrastructure needed to implement common business functions in a standards-based environment. D-AR017.1 The Web services Architecture must support common business functions, to the extent that those functions are defined in similar methodologies such as EDI. D-AR017.2 The Web services Architecture must support reliable messaging and routing. D-AR017.3 The Web services Architecture must support unique message IDs and message sequencing. D-AR017.4 The Web services Architecture must support reliable transaction processing. Copying from the previous posting: 1 - I believe that I was the champion of this Critical Success Factor. 2 - I recall that I got a chance to make a case for the AC and, although the general idea that web services should do something along these lines is popular, there was very little positive response for these specific AC's. I believe that the feeling was that they are stated in a way that does not mesh well with other requirements and that the objectives are really covered in the Usage Cases. 3 - Since there was talk on the last con-call of "for-sure" getting the requirements finished at the F2F, and there was support for the concept of "if we can't agree drop it" -- or something along these lines -- I think that there is a good chance that all of D-AC017 is headed for oblivion. My personal reaction, as the "champion", is that I still like D-AC017 because it accurately and succinctly expresses what my personal major success criterion is for the WG. However, I feel that I had my chance to make my case, was listened to and did not obviously convince anybody. Under those circumstances I am hardly likely to object to it being dropped, and in fact I would propose it myself. Soooo -- one thing I am saying is: IF YOU REALLY LIKE D-AC017 YOU'D BETTER SAY SO REAL SOON. But there is another potential issue that I think may be much more important. As the requirement document stands, D-AC017 is the ONLY place that mentions "reliable messaging". If it is dropped ... well, I don't think that it is reasonable for the requirements not to mention reliable messaging at all. I believe that it has been very commonly expressed by many people in many forums that the two most important issues that need to be resolved in order to use web services in business settings are getting agreement on how to handle security and reliable messaging. I think that reliable messaging MUST be mentioned somehow or the WG will lose essential credibility. If D-AC017 is dropped I would be, if it's the best we can do, satisfied with something like, "The working group MUST address the issue of reliable messaging", which would leave open such deeply unsatisfying solutions as, "Reliable messaging is not possible," or "Reliable messaging is not a part of web services architecture" -- but I really don't think that we can just not mention it at all. -----Original Message----- From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 2:32 PM To: www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: Champions for Draft-status requirements? [snip] It looks like there are 4 goals with draft status, and three of those have CSF's with draft status associated with them: D-AC001, D-AC016, D-AC017, and D-AC018. Also, AC006 is agreed on, but some of its CSFs are still in draft status. It would be nice to have volunteers to take these on. I would expect it to take about one hour for each to dig through the archives, look at the votes and comments, and propose a sensible resolution. [snip]
Received on Tuesday, 27 August 2002 15:25:09 UTC