[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: understanding of SOA ecosystem scope
The ecosystem does not have unlimited visibility and insight into everything
within the ecosystem. It only has visibility to the extent that details are
made available to it. Part of governance and management may be specifying what
is required to be visible but there are limits beyond which we would violate
opacity in the name of possible value of arbitrary information.
Ken
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Kenneth Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508
________________________________________
From: mpoulin@usa.com [mpoulin@usa.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 8:05 AM
To: Bashioum, Christopher D; Laskey, Ken; boris.lublinsky@navteq.com;
soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: understanding of SOA ecosystem scope
the last FULL version (17 an) of RAF stated:
the SOA-RAF makes key
49 assumptions that SOA-based systems involve:
50 • Use of resources that are distributed across ownership boundaries;
51 • people and systems interacting with each other, also across ownership
52 boundaries;
53 • security, management and governance that are similarly distributed across
54 ownership boundaries; and
55 • interaction between people and systems that is primarily through the
exchange of
56 messages with reliability that is appropriate for the intended uses and
purposes.
57 Even in apparently homogenous structures, such as within a single
organization,
58 different groups and departments nonetheless often have ownership boundaries
59 between them. This reflects organizational reality as well as the real
motivations and
60 desires of the people running those organizations.
61 Such an environment as described above is an ecosystem and, specifically in
the
62 context of SOA-based systems, is a SOA ecosystem.
(I have not found explicit definition of SOA ecosystem in the Peter/Chris
definition spreadsheets)
The things is red are, IMO, the reasons of my understanding that a SOA ecosystem
has full visibility into everything it includes. This relates to the logical and
functional aspects of the implementaiton of the service. For example, to list
just a few, interactions with non-service resources, interactions with other
services engaged in the controlled combinations (orchestration and
choreography), security controls that contribute to the business trust between
services.
I'd like to ask for your comments on whether this understanding of SOA
ecosystem in RAF matches yours (though I know that Boris disagrees with me
already).
Cheers,
- Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Bashioum, Christopher D <cbashioum@mitre.org>
To: Laskey, Ken <klaskey@mitre.org>; 'Lublinsky, Boris' <boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>;
mpoulin@usa.com <mpoulin@usa.com>; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
<soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Sat, Apr 2, 2011 3:42 am
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week
This is interesting. Turns out that management determines what it needs, but
monitoring may only be able to monitor primitives that don’t map directly to
management needs. There will likely be an algorithm (or two or three) that
combines monitoring primitives into information that is helpful for management
decisions.
From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org<mailto:klaskey@mitre.org?>]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 4:20 PM
To: 'Lublinsky, Boris'; mpoulin@usa.com<mailto:mpoulin@usa.com>;
soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week
Is there a management capability that applies to the existence and adequacy of
monitoring? That is what I had in mind.
Ken
From: Lublinsky, Boris [mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com<mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com?>]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 3:57 PM
To: Laskey, Ken; mpoulin@usa.com<mailto:mpoulin@usa.com>; boris.lublinsky@navteq.com<mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>;
soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week
Monitoring is a means – you can’t manage what you do not measure
From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org<mailto:klaskey@mitre.org?>]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 2:20 PM
To: mpoulin@usa.com<mailto:mpoulin@usa.com>; boris.lublinsky@navteq.com<mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>;
soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week
I think the point is monitoring is a required manageability. Otherwise, you
don’t have the information to do the other manageability.
Ken
From: mpoulin@usa.com<mailto:mpoulin@usa.com> [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com<mailto:mpoulin@usa.com?>]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 12:03 PM
To: Laskey, Ken; boris.lublinsky@navteq.com<mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>;
soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week
Now is my tern to follow the discusstion and figure out what is sold ( and whome
to).
Will come back with my comments (if any) later. At the mean time, I can only
point that means cannot drive the subject[http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/resources/core/images/indecision.png]:
monitoring cannot drive management - it has to be the other way around
- Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org<mailto:klaskey@mitre.org>>
To: 'Lublinsky, Boris' <boris.lublinsky@navteq.com<mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>>;
mpoulin@usa.com<mailto:mpoulin@usa.com>; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 4:00 am
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week
Sold!
From: Lublinsky, Boris [mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com<mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com?>]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 10:59 PM
To: Laskey, Ken; 'Lublinsky, Boris'; mpoulin@usa.com<mailto:mpoulin@usa.com>;
soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week
Actually this brings one more manageability, that Michael does not have – usage
manageability and metering. I will buy this one
From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org<mailto:klaskey@mitre.org?>]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 9:57 PM
To: 'Lublinsky, Boris'; mpoulin@usa.com<mailto:mpoulin@usa.com>;
soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week
I concede on the example but I’m still inclined to think monitoring needs to be
broader than invocation events.
Too tired to be more creative.
Ken
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Kenneth Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508
From: Lublinsky, Boris [mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com<mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com?>]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 10:52 PM
To: Laskey, Ken; mpoulin@usa.com<mailto:mpoulin@usa.com>; boris.lublinsky@navteq.com<mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>;
soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week
Ken,
Michael already has network management, that will react at you situation number
1. So I am still not buying events thingy
From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org<mailto:klaskey@mitre.org?>]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 9:45 PM
To: mpoulin@usa.com<mailto:mpoulin@usa.com>; boris.lublinsky@navteq.com<mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>;
soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week
1. I think events have to be more than invocations. A service consuming a
lot of bandwidth may be an event that requires a response from management.
Deciding the response likely falls under other management but the monitoring
itself is needed. If everything relates to an invocation, then maybe service
invocation is sufficient, but I don’t think you want to go there. I’d stick
with monitoring.
2. As you list things below to fall under Combination or Composability,
the list becomes too diverse and has no focus for what is really being managed.
Everything requires some degree of management and when we decide something needs
to specifically be called out, it needs to be clear why the SOA ecosystem
requires something beyond traditional management.
3. I think all aspects of performance should be in one place. Otherwise,
it seems like you’re splitting hair to break some out and not others.
Ken
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Kenneth Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508
From: mpoulin@usa.com<mailto:mpoulin@usa.com> [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com<mailto:mpoulin@usa.com?>]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 7:44 AM
To: boris.lublinsky@navteq.com<mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>;
soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week
Boris,
I think that our task is not to set a status of "disagree" but to find a
solution to resolve the disagreement.
1. About Event Manageability. It seems to me that "service invocation
manageability" might work because I certainly do not want to manage events that
may be even outside of SOA ecosystem. Also, I do distinguish (despite of EDA
vision) between the event and reporting of this event. A consideration I use is
this: if nobody (in given realm) listens to/monitors the event, this does not
mean that the event has not happened; one event may cause another event - a sad
example: an earthquake causes a tsunami - and, if we discard the initial event
as non-existed but we recognise the caused event, we have to deal with things
without reasons, out of the blue, which is not natural and unacceptable to me.
So, an events selection manageability is a sort of a view inside and outside the
SOA ecosystem for the service invocation triggers.
2. I do respect IBM’s viewpoint but they proofed they are not very fast with
changes and they still take SOA service as a Web Service in several of their
even modern applications and papers while others (e.g. Dr. Marc Fiammante) are
quite in synch with what we do in OASIS.
So, a service, even a composite or aggregate service depends only on
functionality it needs from others. Considering an explicit contracts and a
possibility of the trusted realm, a service (and its implementation like a
process) may not and do not need to know who actually provides required
functionality.
By Combination or Composability Management I mean (but may be did not use proper
words to articulate) a management of service capabilities to be used in the
combinations or to combine others for providing solution for common task. This,
particularly, includes: special relationship between business services and Data
Services / Data Access Layer, enforcement of policies related to the granularity
of interfaces, management of information stores/repositories for meta-data,
management of the processes and procedures – development and run-time – that
result in new service combinations (which may include as integration as testing
aspects), and so on. I hope, you’ve got the picture. Configuration management
may also take place among others in this domain but, IMO, it is certainly not
the major one.
3. The last one – management of business performances – do require and use
SLA and SLA management but the letter is not always a visible part of the
former. This is why I put them separately: the SLA management can still be
provisioned at many different levels (including pure technical ones) while
management of business performances may be more laid around business KPI.
What do you think?
- Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Lublinsky, Boris <boris.lublinsky@navteq.com<mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>>
To: mpoulin@usa.com<mailto:mpoulin@usa.com> <mpoulin@usa.com<mailto:mpoulin@usa.com>>;
boris.lublinsky@navteq.com<mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>
<boris.lublinsky@navteq.com<mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>>;
soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
<soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>>
Sent: Thu, Mar 31, 2011 12:25 am
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week
Do you see events manageability as service invocation manageability? I do not
think I see it this way
On everything else,
Let’s see we agree to disagree
What you call composability I call dependence – see IBM’s service model – a
service can have both interfaces and dependencies
For me also, business performance requires SLA
From: mpoulin@usa.com<mailto:mpoulin@usa.com> [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com<mailto:mpoulin@usa.com?>]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 5:18 PM
To: boris.lublinsky@navteq.com<mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>;
soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week
Boris, at a glance:
• Event Monitoring Manageability is mandatory IMO because it is not
about notifications but about managing selection of events that trigger the
services.
• I do not understand "Dependency manageability" because service do not
depend on other services; instead, they depend on functionality of an arbitrary
trusted provider (IBM Dynamic Process Edition allowed having a 'basket' of
potential providers where the process picked up the actual one when needed on
the fly 9not a discovery mechanism); no end-points were configured up-front).
This is not a programmatic dependency, which many would read into.
• Combination or Composability Management is about managing
combinations of services that might be realised w/ or w/o configuration, i.e.
via design (composition) or orchestration (aggregation), by both service
provider and consumer. The fact that existing BPM tools require configuration
does not mean that they are the only possible ways of doing combinations. Also,
do not forget about business domain where a service combination may requires
just a new organisational chart :-)
• Business Performance and Service Level Agreement are very different
things, e.g. the former may have monetary expression while the latter - pure
technical expression. Also, the best technical expressions (measurements and
matrix) do not necessary lead to the best monetary expressions.
- Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Lublinsky, Boris <boris.lublinsky@navteq.com<mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>>
To: mpoulin@usa.com<mailto:mpoulin@usa.com> <mpoulin@usa.com<mailto:mpoulin@usa.com>>;
soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
<soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>>
Sent: Wed, Mar 30, 2011 5:58 pm
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week
Here is my manageability proposal:
• Lifecycle Manageability
• Configuration manageability
o Dependency manageability
• Policies Manageability
• Contracts manageability
• Business Performance manageability
o SLA Manageability
Event Monitoring Manageability is really about reporting and should not be there
From: mpoulin@usa.com<mailto:mpoulin@usa.com> [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com<mailto:mpoulin@usa.com?>]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 5:52 AM
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week
Folks,
I have incorporated all comments and chnages into attached document. In some
places, I have repeated the text (in different font) just to save and show the
comments that I responeded insted but didn't change the text.
I am not sure what tactics we prefer now - to go through all left comments
together in the meeting or for me to resolve each comment with particular author
(in some cases I disagree with the comment, however).
Cheers,
- Michael
________________________________
The information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is
intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message and any copy of it
from your computer or paper files.
________________________________
The information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is
intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message and any copy of it
from your computer or paper files.
________________________________
The information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is
intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message and any copy of it
from your computer or paper files.
________________________________
The information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is
intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message and any copy of it
from your computer or paper files.
________________________________
The information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is
intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message and any copy of it
from your computer or paper files.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]