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

RE: Champions for Draft-status requirements? / D-AC017

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 12:24:38 -0700
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E2EAEBD@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
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

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

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

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

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?


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.

Received on Tuesday, 27 August 2002 15:25:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:05:36 UTC