RE: [asap] from the OMA TP meeting in London, UK

["Sodhi, Gavenraj S" <Gavenraj.Sodhi@ca.com>]

I am in agreement with you on that as displayed in my last email
regarding the use of SAML, WS-S, SPML, or other technologies in a SOAP
message.

-Raj

Gavenraj Sodhi, MBA
Computer Associates
Product Manager, eTrust
Mobile:  +1 949 350 8808
gavenraj.sodhi@ca.com 


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Ricker [mailto:jricker@izarinc.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 12:29 PM
To: ASAP
Subject: RE: [asap] from the OMA TP meeting in London, UK

We launched ASAP precisely BECAUSE there are three or more standards
working on asynch. It is the whole point. It does no one well if WSRM,
CAF, WSBPEL et al. each implement their own way of handling asynch. That
would be just as if there were no SOAP and each of these standards
efforts implemented their own envelope structure.

Ricker


On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 15:06, Sodhi, Gavenraj S wrote:
> Can you elaborate on the work WSRM, CAF, and WSBPEL are doing that may
> send ASAP in a crash course with them?  This would allow us to go
> through and discuss and debate the areas we may be complementary.  For
> myself, I probably could not make the F2F in December because of
> personal obligations but it would provide me tools to take back to CA
to
> better understand if we may be able to reuse efforts from other
> initiatives, if they are duplicative.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Raj
> 
> Gavenraj Sodhi, MBA
> Computer Associates
> Product Manager, eTrust
> Mobile:  +1 949 350 8808
> gavenraj.sodhi@ca.com 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Shenfield [mailto:mshenfield@rim.net] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 11:48 AM
> To: Jeffrey Ricker
> Cc: ASAP
> Subject: [asap] from the OMA TP meeting in London, UK
> 
> or rather from the pub at Hilton Metropole where the OMA (Open Mobile
> Alliance) TP is going on :)
> 
> This week I am attending OMA TP meetings in UK and went for drinks and
> chat with MWS people from Microsoft and IBM. When discussing async web
> services I mentioned OASIS ASAP and asked why they ignore it. They
> replied that both companies are concerned that there are already 3
OASIS
> groups that refer to async services in the specs (WSRM, CAF, WSBPEL)
and
> as their specs are close to completion they're afraid that ASAP will
> either reinvent the wheel or go in the opposite direction.
> 
> I think it is a very good point and we should first carefully analyze
> all AWS related references in other OASIS specs before issuing working
> draft or defining scope, etc. Typically this is done through liaison
> reports or F2F meetings for review and discussion. Unless we go
through
> this exercise, I don't think we can count on wide adoption of ASAP
given
> the small size of the group and lack of participation from industry
> heavyweights. I propose to have a F2F meeting (2 days) on the second
> week of December and resolve the major issues. I can host the meeting
in
> my Toronto office but would prefer iWay to host it in NYC so I'll have
a
> chance to meet my former IBI/iWay peers :)
> Cheers,
> 
> Mike 
> 
> 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/asap/members/leave_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/asap/members/leave_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/asap/members/leave_workgrou
p.php.