RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging

I completely agree that "too many standards" is equivalent to "no 
standard".  As a consumer, we carefully analyze which small subset of 
standards is likely to win from a political perspective and invest our time 
and energy to it.

I certainly like to see it is the technology consumer (not provider) to 
approve the release of a standard.  Or lock every technology provider in a 
room to agree on one standard.  Unfortunately, the reality told me 
repeatedly that my hope will never come true.

Best regards,
Ricky

At 07:08 PM 3/15/2003 -0800, Assaf Arkin wrote:
>
>The primary difference is political. The authors of WS-ReliableMessaging 
>have not signed up to participate in the WS-RM TC. I'm not sure that it's 
>a given that the authors will submit it to the WS-RM TC. I'd say that it 
>bodes badly for the standardization effort.
>
>I think it bodes badly for WS in general.
>
>My customers have the expectations that WS lowers their costs by removing 
>artificial barriers that existed in the pre-WS world due to a variety of 
>different protocols that never interoperated. The complexity of 
>integrating CORBA with DCOM with CICS was taking up much of their time 
>preventing them from building better solutions that address their real 
>business problem.
>
>If we're creating a variety of standardized or non-standardized 
>overlapping specification we go full circle to where we were before. 
>Businesses will spend most of their time trying to get some system that 
>talks WS-RM(1) to interface with some system that talks WS-RM(2), and I'm 
>not even talking about the possibility of using WS-Routing, TRP or the 
>garden variety of vendor-specific specs.
>
>So as an industry, have we (again) promised something that we have 
>absolutely no intent on delivering?
>
>arkin
>
>Anne
>-----Original Message-----
>From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]
>Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 4:05 PM
>To: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org; 'Ugo Corda'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
>Subject: RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging
>
>I agree with Ugo. Reading through the abstract it's obvious that we have 
>two specifications that solve the same problem. Is there a value in that?
>
>I actually dug deeper into the specs and I can tell that there are some 
>differences. But most of us don't have the time to compare green apples to 
>red apples. It would have been much easier if someone could present a list 
>of the difference. If WS-ReliableMessaging does something better than 
>WS-RM then clearly it could be summarized in two pages and presented to 
>the WS community so we can judge.
>
>Maybe they are so different that we need to have both. I don't see that, 
>but a more educated explanation would help. Maybe the changes are minor, 
>in which case such a comparison could help the OASIS TC in addressing the 
>problem of reliable messaging in a much better way.
>
>Am I the only one interested in seeing such a comparison?
>
>arkin
>-----Original Message-----
>From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]
>Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 12:46 PM
>To: 'Ugo Corda'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
>Subject: RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging
>
>I suggest you need to read the specs slower rather than quicker :-)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On 
>Behalf Of Ugo Corda
>Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 12:44 PM
>To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
>Subject: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging
>
>Probably most people in the group have had a chance by now to see this 
>week's announcement of the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging (see [1]).
>After a quick reading of the spec, I have to say that I don't see any 
>major architectural/technical differences compared to the OASIS 
>WS-ReliableMessaging TC activity and its input document WS-Reliability (or 
>at least differences big enough to justify going a completely separate way).
>I really hope that some WSA members whose companies published the new 
>reliability spec can help me clarify the previous point and provide some 
>architectural/technical rationale for the separate publication.
>Thank you,
>Ugo
>
>P.S. No need to answer if the rationale for publication is a political one 
>(I can figure that out by myself ...).
>
>[1] 
><http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2003-03-13-a.html>http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2003-03-13-a.html 
>
>