- From: <Daniel_Austin@grainger.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 16:02:41 -0600
- To: dmh@contivo.com, hugo@w3.org, Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com, Tom_Carroll@grainger.com, www-ws-arch@w3.org, www-wsa-comments@w3.org
Greetings,
Per my action item from the previous f2f meeting, I have an action
item to propose a resolution for issue #10 [1]. This proposal is intended
to comply with the WSA Issues Process [2].
Issues #7-12 are all from a single email from Joseph Reagle
(reagle@w3c.org). An individual email response will be crafted for each
individual issue in accordance with the Issues Process [2]. This is the
proposed response to #10.
<original comment>
|----------------------------------+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+---------------------------------->
|AG004 Security | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|Web Services Architecture must | | | |
|provide a secure environment for | | | |
|online processes. Critical success| | | |
|factors and requirements for this | | | |
|goal: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|AC006 addresses the security of | | | |
|Web services across distributed | | | |
|domains and platforms.AC020 | | | |
|enables privacy protection for the| | | |
|consumer of a Web service across | | | |
|multiple domains and services. | | | |
|AG005 Scalability and | | | |
|ExtensibilityThe web services | | | |
|architecture must promote | | | |
|implementations that are scalable | | | |
|and extensible. | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|What do these terms mean: | | | |
|encourage/promote (perhaps use | | | |
|one?), enable, provide, and | | | |
|support? | | | |
| Encourage X: while out of | | | |
| scope of any technical | | | |
| specification, recommend X? | | | |
| Enable X: X can be | | | |
| implemented by using the | | | |
| facilities of the | | | |
| archtiecture (does this mean| | | |
| X can be implemented using | | | |
| the facilities of the | | | |
| architecture and nothing | | | |
| more?) | | | |
| Provie X: a concrete | | | |
| deliverable? | | | |
| Support X: Unlinke enable, X| | | |
| can be implemented by using | | | |
| the facilities of the | | | |
| architecture amongst other | | | |
| piences? | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|(A term I sometimes also use is, | | | |
|"not preclude".) | | | |
|----------------------------------+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+---------------------------------->
>----------------------------------+---------------------------------->
| | |
>----------------------------------+---------------------------------->
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
</original comment>
<proposed response>
Dear Mr. Reagle,
Thank you very much for your comment to the WSA Working Group. We
very much appreciate your time and effort in sending us this comment. Your
comment has been added to the WSA Issues List [1] and will be resolved
according to the WSA Issues process [2]. In your email, there were several
comments, which have been assigned issue IDs #7-12. Each of these comments
has been scheduled to be addressed individually.
Concerning your comment that the words " encourage", "promote",
"provide", and "support" are used rather loosely in the document, and are
often treated as synonyms even though they are not in fact synonymous: the
editors of the Requirements document concur with this comment, and can only
plead the exigencies of the authoring process, during which the document
may pass through many individual hands. We will attempt to regularize this
language prior to the next publication of the document. Your proposed
language, to wit using the phrase " will not preclude" in place of the
other phrases above is a good one, and will probably be used except in
cases where this does not express the sentiment of the group on the issue.
Also, in regard to your comment on non-repudiation; the Working Group
does not intend to require particular algorithms for non-repudiation, but
we agree that a definition of the term should occur in the WS Glossary
document.
Again, thanks for your comment.
Regards,
D-
</proposed response>
[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/issues/wsa-issues.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/04/wd-wsa-issues-process-20020426
*************************************************
Dr. Daniel Austin
Sr. Technical Architect / Architecture Team Lead
daniel_austin@notes.grainger.com <----- Note change!
847 793 5044
Visit http://www.grainger.com
Received on Monday, 3 February 2003 17:02:37 UTC