RE: [wsdm] Groups - wd-wsdm-muws-0.5-20040329-with-tracking.zip uploaded

["Vambenepe, William N" <vbp@hp.com>]

Hi Igor,

We need to be once again careful about the distinction between MUWS and
MOWS here. In the MOWS world, we usually assume that we have access to
the operational WSDL of the service, so discovery becomes mostly (not
only) a question of going from the operational WSDL to the management
handle (be it WSDL or EPR). Clearly we can specify a lot here to help
people and we should do so, in future versions of MOWS.

In the MUWS case though, there isn't a lot we are going to be able to
say in general. I have a router in front of me. I want a handle to
manage it (EPR, WSDL, whatever I need to send management messages to
it). What is MUWS going to say about this discovery process? Probably
not very much. Because MUWS is addressing varied domains, the discovery
process will often be domain-specific. Very often, I expect this will
happen through relationships. From one manageable resource that I happen
to know, I retrieve the EPRs of other resources and so on. Or using
registries of EPRs. I agree the MUWS discovery section needs more work
(and even more importantly we need to add support for relationships in
MUWS), but nothing that requires to delay or cancel MUWS 0.5. And even
in MUWS 1.0 we can't expect the MUWS spec to have all the answers. This
is similar to how people agree on new manageability capabilities that
they create. MUWS is not going to specify how this happens, it is an
out-of-band, maybe domain-specific activity. This doesn't mean MUWS is
useless.

Regards,

William


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sedukhin, Igor S [mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 2:35 PM
> To: Murray, Bryan P.; Vambenepe, William N; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsdm] Groups - 
> wd-wsdm-muws-0.5-20040329-with-tracking.zip uploaded
> 
> 
> Then we must delay publication of WSDM 0.5 until it clarifies 
> how exactly to get proper EPRs. Otherwise it is unuseable.
> The statement in the WSRF 
> [
> A WS-Resource-qualified
> endpoint reference may be returned as a result of a Web 
> service message request to
> a factory to create a new WS-Resource or, alternatively, from 
> the evaluation of a
> search query on a service registry, or as a result of some 
> application-specific Web
> service request.
> ]
> Does not help WSDM 0.5 implementers at all.
> 
> The 
> http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/ws-resource/ws-m
> odelingresources.pdf says
> [
> Note that other patterns for enabling access to stateful 
> resources are possible. For
> example, a Web service could maintain the resource identity 
> as static service state,
> thus obviating the need to pass that identity in the 
> WS-Addressing endpoint
> reference. This design choice implies a one-to-one mapping 
> from Web service
> endpoints to stateful resources and thus a need for a unique 
> Web service endpoint
> for each stateful resource.
> ]
> So I don't understand why April 14-15th tests are not 
> compliant to WSDM 0.5 or WSRP or WSRF?...
> 
> It was just a matter of clearly stating the case istead of 
> delaying it for the better times...
> 
> -- Igor Sedukhin .. (igor.sedukhin@ca.com)
> -- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Murray, Bryan P. [mailto:bryan.murray@hp.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 5:03 PM
> To: Sedukhin, Igor S; Vambenepe, William N; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsdm] Groups - 
> wd-wsdm-muws-0.5-20040329-with-tracking.zip uploaded
> 
> WSDM has decided to use WS-ResourceProperties to support its 
> need for attributes for version 0.5. I think we should not 
> add a constraint to the WSDM specs contradicting some of what 
> is required by WS-RP.
> 
> This does not mean that a manageability endpoint needs to 
> supply an EndpointReference that makes use of 
> ReferenceProperties. But, since WS-RP is based on 
> WS-Addressing, it does mean that a compliant manageability 
> endpoint does need to understand the WSA SOAP headers.
> 
> Furthermore, a compliant manageability client does need to 
> understand the ReferenceProperties aspect of an 
> EndpointReference and treat them appropriately when sending 
> messages to that endpoint.
> 
> The interop tests we run in April 14-15 are not WSDM 0.5 
> compliant. I expect that the tests we run at the next 
> face-to-face will be. We can't just kludge the spec to make 
> our interop tests work. The interop tests need to be used to 
> validate that we are using the right technology in our spec.
> 
> Bryan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sedukhin, Igor S [mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 1:46 PM
> To: Vambenepe, William N; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsdm] Groups - 
> wd-wsdm-muws-0.5-20040329-with-tracking.zip
> uploaded
> 
> 
> I just want to define consistently interoperable specs. This 
> has nothing
> to do with the interop scenario.
> 
> If I give you a WSDL that follows WSDM 0.5 and in the binding 
> it states
> that WSA headers are required and mustUnderstand. There is no way you
> can talk to such manageabilty endpoint without knowing where 
> to get the
> EPRs.
> 
> In the 1.0 or 0.8 if we decide to explain how and where to 
> get the EPRs
> for this case, we can remove the statement.
> 
> The problem here is that WS-Resource pattern is the "default" in WSRP
> and so we'd have to constrain to make it work for 0.5. If it was
> otherwise, i.e. "singleton" was defualt, we'd not have to state
> anything.
> 
> -- Igor Sedukhin .. (igor.sedukhin@ca.com)
> -- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vambenepe, William N [mailto:vbp@hp.com] 
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:31 PM
> To: Sedukhin, Igor S; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsdm] Groups - 
> wd-wsdm-muws-0.5-20040329-with-tracking.zip
> uploaded
> 
> 
> Hi Igor,
> 
> > 770 Section 6 should say
> > "WS-ResourceProperties MUST be used in a singleton pattern.
> > WSA headers are not expected and not required in message exchanges."
> > We may remove this statement after we have discussed this and 
> > addressed properly.
> 
> How about we discuss before adding the statement? :-)
> 
> I don't understand why we need this statement. I understand 
> that we have
> chosen to limit ourselves to this case in the interop demo, 
> but why does
> that mean the spec needs to be limited to this? This is just 
> one of many
> decisions we have made for the sake of simplicity in the interop and I
> don't have a problem with it in that context. But what is the rational
> for restricting the WSRF implied resource pattern in the spec?
> 
> Do you have a reason that would not apply to WSRF but would apply to
> WSDM and would therefore require us to profile WSRF in such a way?
> 
> William
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from 
> the roster of
> the OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsdm/members/leav
> e_workgrou
> p.php.
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from 
> the roster of
> the OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsdm/members/leav
> e_workgrou
> p.php.
> 
> 
>