[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Feedback on t-soa-us-pr-01
SOA-Tel Colleagues, Please accept the following comments as my feedback against
the Telecom SOA Use Cases and Issues (t-sos-us-pr-01) v1.0 document that was
out for public review. The first two comments have to do with the scope
of the TC. The remaining comments address the published technical work
itself, i.e,. t-soa-us-pr-01. Note that I am a voting member of the SOA-RA TC, the SOA-RAF
SC, and the SCA-Assembly TC. I am also the corporate representative to
OASIS for NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory. If you have additional questions, please contact me at Jeffrey.A.Estefan@jpl.nasa.gov.
I look forward to further collaboration with your TC. Regards… - Jeff Estefan, NASA/JPL Comments: 1.
The charter of the SOA-Tel TC to identify gaps in
standards for using SOA techniques in telecommunications is a good one although
the scope of the activity is not particularly clear despite the scope
description in the TC charter. For example, are we only talking about
gaps in technology-based specifications and standards as specific technologies
used to “implement” the paradigm of SOA (e.g., WSDL, SOAP, UDDI, WS-*,
XML-*, REST, CORBA, etc.)?; or are we talking about gaps in specifications and
standards in “architecting” SOA solutions and the SOA paradigm (see
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7699909399/toc.pdf)?
It is very important to adequately scope the effort and upon review of
t-soa-us-pr-01, there appears to be a mix of the two. I will elaborate
more in another comments 4 and 5 below. 2.
Also with respect to scope, there are a plethora of implementation-related
specifications and standards that span several open standards organizations
(e.g., W3C, OASIS, OMG, The Open Group, IETF). Your document t-soa-us-pr-01
barely scratches the surface. This is not intended to be a nit as much as
just the recognition of the sheer volume of work that would be required to
adequately address the various implementation technologies alone. It is
not sufficient to just “cherry pick” a few WS-* specs and a few SOA
architecture-related and programming model specs like SOA-RA and SCA-Assembly
to identify gaps in the standards. This hardly paints a clear, complete,
and unambiguous picture. Just the sheer volume of WS-specs as you identified
on pg 52 of t-soa-us-pr-01 from the innoQ graphic suggests setting yourselves
up for a potentially huge volume of work. 3.
Turning to the document t-soa-pr-01 itself, in Section 1,
we would have preferred to see reference to the paradigm of SOA leverage the OASIS
SOA-RM, a formally adopted OASIS standard since 2006 and your organization is, after
all, an OASIS TC. The SOA-RM is only reference in Sect 6 on the
discussion of Issues on Management, which isn’t even on the radar of the
SOA-RM standard; however, the SOA-RA is and more on that subject next.
The introductory material seems to be a freeform discussion on the SOA paradigm
rather than a standards-based reference. 4.
With respect to Section 6 and Issues on Management, those
of us participating in the SOA-RA (now referred to as the SOA-RAF (Reference
Architecture Foundation)) have also struggled with modeling the management
aspects of the SOA paradigm. We recognize this is the weakest link in our
spec and we are trying to address that by hopefully recruiting additional members
to the Subcommittee (SC) to assist us. I have shared the material
provided in Section 6 with current members of the SC to investigate the TM
Forum SDF program in more detail; however, it is imperative that our efforts be
in concert with the development of an open standards approach. 5.
Also on the subject of Section 6, I did not see except
in passing any technical details in terms of use cases that address a specific
implementation technology standard for service management, namely, WSDM-*.
There is only brief mention of WSDM-* and no reference called out to WSDM-* in
the Normative References section (1.2). It would seem that to be
consistent with the implementation technology specific gaps that were addressed
in the other sections related to addressing and notification, communication
protocols, and security, which did focus on specific technology specs and standards
(i.e., WS-Addressing/WS-Notification, SOAP, SAML, etc.), that a similar approach
be used for WSDM-* and any other open specs and standards related to service
management. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]