Re: [amqp] Proposed AMQP Technical Workshop

[Gordon Sim <gsim@redhat.com>]

On 03/13/2012 09:42 AM, Godfrey, Robert X wrote:
> Thanks again to all who responded, I’ve collated everyone’s responses
> from which I would suggest the following agenda:
>
> Mon/Tue: Bindings and Mappings (2 days)
>
> Stream A: JMS/WCF/DTX
>
> Stream B: SCTP/OpenMAMA/C/C++
>
> Wed: Global Addressing/End-to-end Security (1 day)
>
> Thu/Fri: Adoption: Conformance Testing, Documentation, Examples (2 days)

[...]

> Obviously suggestions on the agenda from those who are interested in
> attending are also very welcome.

Unfortunately I can't make these dates.

However I would suggest since there will be several of you there that it 
would be good to spend a short amount of time on a (hopefully 
lightweight) process for defining 'unblessed' extensions in such a way 
as to encourage adoption of interoperable solutions. (Along the lines of 
Rob's recent proposal).

I'd like to see an RFC-like approach where anyone can post an RFC 
describing an extension and get allocated any necessary descriptors from 
an 'experimental' range (subject to sufficient clarity on the proposed 
mechanism).

RFCs could then be shepherded through the formal standards process based 
on interest, traction and scheduling. This could involve significant 
modifications; it could mean combining (aspects of) several different 
RFCs for similar mechanisms etc.

The point is however that we could have something emerge between a 
free-for-all with little prospect for interoperability on extensions and 
having to wait for everything go through the official process (which can 
also tend to rush things through).

Given the wide range of interesting extensions, I think such a process 
would be invaluable in developing some of the other themes in your agenda.