RE: [wsrm] Proposal to resolve REL-49

[<chris.hipson@bt.com>]

Jishnu @ hp said:

> Not clear to me that I would call it a dependency.....

> I think what would be acceptable is a position which goes something
> like: We use the proposed framework subject to the following:

>1. The intended scope of use of this framework as an extension point in
>WSDL1.1 is constrained to be within the WS-RM spec. This will not be
>advertised in the WS-RM spec as a standalone framework for use in WSDL
>1.1 in general.

>2. When  WS-RM evolves to work with WSDL 2.0, assuming that in WSDL 2.0
>a standard mechanism is provided for annotating WSDL with
>properties/policies, WS-RM in that version would use the mechanism
>provided in WSDL 2.0 instead of the stopgap framework that is being
>proposed for WSDL 1.1.

>BTW, there are other candidate ways of doing this (e.g. resource
>properties in WSRF, or the Quality of Protection patterns as found in
>WS-Security - after all all that is being addressed is annotation about
>QoS properties/policies in the realm of Reliability), so we (HP) are not
>necessarily married to this one that is being proposed, but would be
>happy to have any one (including the one being proposed) that works in
>the interim until the underlying core standard like WSDL grows up to
>cover this space.

Fine by me just so long as we're clear what we are buying into and it's status.

Incidently Features and Properties are in the latest WSDL 2.0 draft.

Compositers are a proposal for inclusion in WSDL 2.0.

Cheers Chrish


	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Jishnu Mukerji [mailto:jishnu@hp.com] 
	Sent: Tue 02/03/2004 21:08 
	To: Hipson,C,Chris,XSJ61 HIPSONC R; jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com; tom@coastin.com 
	Cc: Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com; marc.andrue.goodner@sap.com; wsrm@lists.oasis-open.org 
	Subject: Re: [wsrm] Proposal to resolve REL-49
	
	

	chris.hipson@bt.com wrote:
	
	>Jeff said
	> 
	>
	>>The proposal is to use a WSDL 1.1 extensibility point. There is no
	>>dependency on anything the WSDL 2.0 group may or may not do, now or in the
	>>future.
	>>   
	>>
	>
	>Features, Properties and Compositors are features proposed for WSDL 2.0. Unless this TC wants to define and maintain them going forward then effectively we are discussing an intercept of WSDL 2.0 and there IS a dependency...
	>
	>Chris Hipson BT
	>
	> 
	>
	Not clear to me that I would call it a dependency.....
	
	I think what would be acceptable is a position which goes something
	like: We use the proposed framework subject to the following:
	
	1. The intended scope of use of this framework as an extension point in
	WSDL1.1 is constrained to be within the WS-RM spec. This will not be
	advertised in the WS-RM spec as a standalone framework for use in WSDL
	1.1 in general.
	
	2. When  WS-RM evolves to work with WSDL 2.0, assuming that in WSDL 2.0
	a standard mechanism is provided for annotating WSDL with
	properties/policies, WS-RM in that version would use the mechanism
	provided in WSDL 2.0 instead of the stopgap framework that is being
	proposed for WSDL 1.1.
	
	BTW, there are other candidate ways of doing this (e.g. resource
	properties in WSRF, or the Quality of Protection patterns as found in
	WS-Security - after all all that is being addressed is annotation about
	QoS properties/policies in the realm of Reliability), so we (HP) are not
	necessarily married to this one that is being proposed, but would be
	happy to have any one (including the one being proposed) that works in
	the interim until the underlying core standard like WSDL grows up to
	cover this space.
	
	Jishnu.
	
	--
	Jishnu Mukerji
	Senior Systems Architect          1001 Frontier Road, Suite 300
	Technology Office                 Bridgewater NJ 08807, USA
	Management Software Organization  Tel: +1 908 243 8924
	Hewlett-Packard Company           Fax: +1 908 243 8850
	                                  mailto: jishnu@hp.com