RE: Questions prompted by the publication of WS-ReliableMessaging

Maybe this is a dumb question, but does it have to be "submitted to" the
WS-TC for that TC to pick it up and use it?  I seem to recall that there
are no IPR hurdles in that spec.
 
But I also agree with David Orchard said -- or at least my perception of
it.  Why the heck are we spending all this time discussing what an OASIS
TC should be doing?  If we really wanted to keep WS-RM in the W3C we
could have aggressively gone after chartering a WG.  I recall that a
couple of F2F's ago we discussed doing the things that would lead in
this direction and decided not to.  I recall that one of the reasons at
the time was that many people thought that this activity probably was
better done in OASIS.  Well, it's there now.  End of story as far as I
can see.
 
Let's get on with what we are supposed to be doing.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 3:18 PM
To: David Orchard; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Questions prompted by the publication of
WS-ReliableMessaging


I am personally not concerned at all whether reliability is handled by
OASIS instead of W3C. What really worries me in general is that
duplicate work is being done in competing groups. The publication of
WS-ReliableMessaging without any clear indication of plans to converge
with the OASIS work (publication made, by the way, by companies that, as
far as I know, are not part of the OASIS reliability TC so far)
definitely raised my worries quite a bit. 
 
If you say that there is a good possibility that WS-ReliableMessaging
will be submitted to the OASIS reliability TC, that makes me feel
better. But I'll be looking for concrete actions and not just words. 
 
By the way, it puzzles me that this submission has not yet occurred, if
the authors indeed contemplate that possibility. The OASIS TC just
started its work, and this would be a great time for submission: members
could start right away to look at both specs and get the best of both,
instead of starting work in one direction and having to change course
later.
 
Ugo

	-----Original Message-----
	From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of David Orchard
	Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 12:40 PM
	To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
	Subject: RE: Questions prompted by the publication of
WS-ReliableMessaging
	
	
	I think that companies working on WS-ReliableMessaging bodes
well for the widespread adoption of an sigle, open, RF, interoperable
reliability specification that architects well with other Web service
specifications.  
	 
	What I'm really surprised by is the pushback that people are
giving on the possibility that ws-rm won't automatically go to the oasis
ws-reliability TC.   One of the biggest differences between the W3C and
OASIS is that the W3C has a community review process for new working
groups.  The goal at the W3C being to have a charter for a working group
that all the W3C Members can live with and is technically consistent
with other works in progress.  Indeed, the work that the W3C Team and
member companies do to come up with such a charter and then the 4 week
AC review period are the biggest contributors to the length of time to
form a Working Group, IMO.  OASIS has no such intent or process.   
	 
	If you like forming WG's quickly, you can't ALSO want there to
be consensus in the industry around a single Working Group and it's
charter.  Time to market or consensus, pick one.  
	 
	Continuing the community review of charters a little further,
TC's can arbitrarily change their charter without a community review.
The IP issues around changes in charters alone gives me the willies,
like how the heck do you do early IP disclosure if the charter can
change???
	 
	
	Further, individual members of OASIS don't treat TC formation as
a "first to pole wins" wrt charters.  OASIS provides a place for like
minded individuals to do work.  It has no structure for insisting on
consistency or relationship between TCs or other groups.  Though such is
certainly permitted, pending whether the individuals choose to.  
	 
	Surely these differences in processes and their plus and minues
have been obvious for years now and people shouldn't be surprised by
what can happen, or that it automatically means something *bad* for Web
services.  If people have reservations about the OASIS process, then
talking about it on w3c ws-arch seems like it would need to get moved
off of the w3c pretty fast.  I'm ok with talking about the impact of
various processes on web services architecture for a while, but it's
probably something that needs to be wrapped up quickly.  Finally, people
seem to like the OASIS process as lots of work is being done there.  
	 
	Cheers,
	Dave

		-----Original Message-----
		From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]
		Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 2:34 PM
		To: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org;
www-ws-arch-request@w3.org; 'Ugo Corda'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
		Subject: RE: Questions prompted by the publication of
WS-ReliableMessaging
		
		
		There are differences. The primary difference that I see
(after a quick glance) is that WS-ReliableMessaging relies on/works with
WS-Policy and the other GXA specifications. WS-Reliability is a
standalone SOAP extension. Also, WS-ReliableMessaging has defined
Addressability separately (which decouples asynchronicity from
reliability). I think that WS-ReliableMessaging and WS-Addressability
are better, more flexible, more thorough, more comprehensive
specifications. Even so, the specs address exactly the same problem
space. 
		 
		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. 
		 
		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