RE: D-AG0016 - Technology Gaps

I fully agree with Anne on this.
 
--steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Anne Thomas Manes [mailto:anne@manes.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:22 AM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: D-AG0016 - Technology Gaps


I don't think we can limit ourselves to W3C technologies. We should also
reference other standard specifications.
 
Let's look at a real example: SAML.
 
It's an OASIS standard. I don't think that we want to replicate this
work. We should reference this work. When you want to pass security
assertions, you should use SAML to represent them. What we (a W3C ws-sec
WG) will have to do is specify a SOAP extension that specifies how these
assertions should be carried in a SOAP message.
 
Regards,
Anne
-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Yin Leng Husband
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 6:46 AM
To: Austin, Daniel; 'Damodaran, Suresh'; 'David Orchard';
www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: D-AG0016 - Technology Gaps


I have tried to capture the points raised below, into a previous
proposal, in the following 
"identify architectural and technology gaps that prevent
interoperability;
 identify existing W3C technologies that support interoperability; 
and recommend formation of working groups to formulate new, 
or to standardize existing, specifications or technologies for 
 filling the gaps".
 
Comments?
 
Regards, 
Yin Leng 

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Austin, Daniel [mailto:Austin.D@ic.grainger.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2002 8:47 AM
To: 'Damodaran, Suresh'; 'David Orchard'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: D-AG0016 - Technology Gaps
 
Hi All,
-----Original Message-----
From: Damodaran, Suresh [mailto:Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 12:55 PM
To: 'David Orchard'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: D-AG0016 - Technology Gaps
David,
 
Interesting you say that "if we find an existing spec that fits our
bill, we're going to have to charter up a WG to deal with it" 
Is this the way W3C has always done business?
[Austin, Daniel] 
 
I think W3C has tried to minimize the number of new standards under
discussion at any one time. There is only so much bandwidth and
resources available.
 
While, I am inclined to think we can/should keep this option open, I can
think of other approaches as well.
- working jointly with another standards organization (e.g., IETF)
- creating liaisons with other standards committees and organizations (I
don't know of any example from W3C
off hand, somebody in the list may) so that the other standards
organization would coordinate their work with W3C
[Austin, Daniel] 
 
Examples would be the W3C-WAP Forum co-ordination group and the Voice
Browser-VXML Forum co-ordination group.
 
as for conformance, etc.
[Austin, Daniel] 
 
We should define what conformance means and let other groups e.g. WS-I
develop the testing technology and do the verification.  
 
I tried to create a sentence that captures all this as a goal statement,
but I couldn't (apologies)
 
Cheers,
-Suresh 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: David Orchard [mailto:david.orchard@bea.com]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 3:59 PM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: D-AG0016 - Technology Gaps
I was wondering how this would come up...
 
What does it mean for the WG to recommend existing standards?  Would a
W3C Note (which isn't a standard) count?  
 
What if some tweaking of the spec is required for standardization, say
converting soap-sec into ws-sec and changing the namespace name?  Is the
WSA group going to do the nuts and bolts dirty work on re-using existing
stuff - like writing conformance test suites, publication schedules,
conversion to xmlspec dtd etc.?  There's a fair bit of work just doing
errata.  I would think we don't want to burden the WSA with this.  
 
I think that even if we find an existing spec that fits our bill, we're
going to have to charter up a WG to deal with it.  
 
How about "Identify architectural and technology gaps that prevent
interoperability to formulate standards-based remedies;  formation of
new working groups to standardize new or existing specifications or
technologies." ?
 
Cheers,
Dave
 
-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Yin Leng Husband
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 6:08 PM
To: Prasad Yendluri; Yin Leng Husband
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: D-AG0016 - Technology Gaps
This is a good point.  In fact, the charter says
"The Working Group should also identify what existing W3C technologies
already address functions required by the architecture identified."
I wanted to avoid a discussion over *whose* existing standards and
technologies at this point of high-level requirements
identification.  Therefore I took the path that in order to identify
gaps, existing technologies would be flushed out during the process.
 
Regards, 
Yin Leng 
  
  
-----Original Message-----
From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@webmethods.com] 
Sent: Friday, 8 March 2002 11:33 AM
To: Yin Leng Husband
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: D-AG0016 - Technology Gaps
This is good point. However I think we should recommend existing
standards wherever available to avoid re-inventing. How about something
on the lines: 
"Identify architectural and technology gaps that prevent
interoperability to formulate standards-based remedies;  recommending
existing standards and technologies where available and formation of new
working groups where none available." 
Regards, Prasad 
-------- Original Message -------- 

Subject: 
D-AG0016 - Technology Gaps

Resent-Date: 
Thu, 7 Mar 2002 20:14:38 -0500 (EST)

Resent-From: 
www-ws-arch@w3.org

Date: 
Fri, 8 Mar 2002 11:22:11 +1000

From: 
Yin Leng Husband <Yin-Leng.Husband@compaq.com>

To: 
www-ws-arch@w3.org
 I've taken an action item to drive DAG0016- Technology Gaps requirement
discussion. 
  The current proposed wording is 
 "DAG0016 
 [The Working Group will also act to] identify current gaps in
architectural interoperability and recommend standards-based remedies". 
  As this architecture group is clearly chartered not to design the gap
technologies itself, I would like to suggest changing to"identify
architectural and technology gaps that prevent interoperability; and
recommend formation of new working groups to formulate standards-based
remedies". 
   <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "
urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 
  
Yin Leng