OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

oasis-charter-discuss message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [oasis-charter-discuss] Comments on charter for SOA for Telecom TC (SOA-TEL) - RAND mode

On Nov 05, 2008, at 12:34 PM, Durand, Jacques R. wrote:

> 1. The TC apparently is not supposed to produce specifications, but
> rather
> "analysis, requirements" documents. Is there any reason for  
> operating in
> RAND terms (unless some future rechartering is expected, that will
> produce actual specs)?
> 2. "Develop a requirement document for recommended Web Services (and
> REST) extensions to address the Gaps ..."

I also do not understand why this needs to be done under RAND mode.

I am concerned that there will be little market acceptance of  
encumbered standards that are fundamental to the SOA space.
Seems like this is breaking with the established mode of operation in  
the SOA space.

> It seems the requirement doc will go as far as "recommending  
> extensions"
> which means actually hinting at solutions, or at least defining the  
> directions of future solutions?
> Could then the nature of these "extensions" be better defined in the  
> charter?
> E.g. are we talking of
> (a) "profiling" or configuring existing SOA stacks for specific TEL  
> use, or
> (b) developing specific WS on top of them, or
> (c) "extending" the functionality of these stacks with native  
> functionality that goes beyond (a) and (b)?
> In other words, I see this as part of defining the scope of  
> activities: what will be the technical
> scope of the solutions implied by the requirements down the road?
> My concern is: the scope of activity and deliverables should more  
> explicitly allow for
> solutions outlines / directions (if not full fledge specifications  
> of these solutions), as I guess at some point when
> "requirements" meet concrete SOA environments (and concrete specs  
> like WSDL, BPEL), the separation
> between "requiremetns" from "solution outlines / options" is blurred.
> 3. Audience for this TC:
> "The output of this work will have direct benefits for the use of the
> Web 2.0 and SOA in Telecom.  "
> Should this be interpreted that only Telecom professionals are invited
> or will benefit? Could there be a line on possible interest from SOA
> middleware providers, as this is about requirements for their  
> products?
> 4. Scope of work: there is 1.a but not 1.b secion. Missing 1.b?

Jeff Mischkinsky			          		jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware 				+1(650)506-1975
	and Web Services Standards           			500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 2OP9
Oracle								Redwood Shores, CA 94065

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]