- From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
- Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 11:48:05 -0600
- To: "Heather Kreger" <kreger@us.ibm.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org, "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>, "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- cc: "Eckert, Zulah Karen" <zulah_eckert@hp.com>, hao.he@thomson.com.au, "Husband, Yin-Leng" <Yin-leng.Husband@hp.com>, "Mark Potts" <mark.potts@talkingblocks.com>, igor.sedukhin@ca.com
It seems to me that section 3.2 goes beyond the scope of architecture and gets into a specific specification. It looks like a fine specification to me, but I think that there is a real problem including it in the formal, normative work product of the WG. One reason is that potential stakeholders could reasonably say that they were not invited to participate -- that is, if they had an interest in the spec but not the architecture the charter of the WG would not have led them to participate. I do not think that this is a trivial concern. Again, I don't think that there is anything wrong with the spec, and in fact I think it is really good work. Perhaps a solution would be to separate that part of it into a Note which would not be normative. If, as seems quite likely to me, there is in fact nobody waiting in the wings champing at the bit to introduce their own spec such a note would, in practice, probably have the same effect as including the material in the architecture. If, contrary to expectations, a competing spec DOES appear, then this would be confirmation that putting it in the architecture document would have been the wrong thing to do. -----Original Message----- From: Heather Kreger [mailto:kreger@us.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 11:38 PM To: www-ws-arch@w3.org Cc: Eckert, Zulah Karen; hao.he@thomson.com.au; Husband, Yin-Leng; Mark Potts; igor.sedukhin@ca.com Subject: Submission from MTF for F2F The Management Task Force would like to submit this draft for consideration by the WSArch working group for inclusion into the Web Services Architecture Draft. We would like to review this draft during the MTF time slot on Friday at the F2F. We would also like to discuss the inclusion of the LifeCycle submission from several F2F's ago, and a potential charter for this Task Force. We appreciate any comments by email in the mean time. This draft details only the manageability properties of a Web services endpoint (as defined in the glossary). (See attached file: W3c.Mtf.WSInstance.20030229.htm) I'm attaching it directly because its small, html, with no diagrams, please don't make me go through the archive :-). Thanks, Heather Kreger STSM, Web Services Lead Architect for SWG Emerging Technologies Author of "Java and JMX: Building Manageable Systems" kreger@us.ibm.com 919-543-3211 (t/l 441) cell:919-496-9572
Received on Saturday, 1 March 2003 12:49:03 UTC