[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Telecom SOA Requirements Version 1.0
Interesting work but by its own admission, not a standard. Hence, no
conformance clause. Broken link: In normative references: http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-wsdl20-primer-20070626/Recommendation should read: http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-wsdl20-primer-20070626/ (Note, delete "Recommendation" from the link and it will be fine.) Redirect: Add trailing slash to: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-ws-addr-core-20060509 Thus: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-ws-addr-core-20060509/ 2 Requirements on Intermediaries Handling
Suggest recasting the section header -> Requirements on Intermediaries The first sentence/paragraph is very awkward. Suggest: Some existing specifications used by Service Oriented Architectures do not allow for the presence of intermediaries in message exchanges. The lack of standards for intermediaries has led to workarounds and proprietary solutions. This section develops the requirements for intermediaries in message exchanges. 2.1.1 Indentification of Use Case Text Now reads:
Very awkward. First, I assume that 2.1.1 is supposed to either recite the use case (best choice) or is supposed to be a pointer to where the use case is stated in full? Perhaps both? BTW, the "rows 189-192" reference isn't how one specifies a location in a document with section numbers. Suggest: ******** 2.1.1 Summary of Transaction Endpoints Use Case There is no standard way to specify in a message that is subject to a process or transaction, the end point to which the message should be sent at the end of the process or transaction. The lack of endpoint specification in messages is more fully documented in [SOA-TEL 1.0], 3.1 Transaction Endpoints Specification. ********* I am not real sure what to make of 2.1.2 Requirement(s) where it appears to quote [SOA-TEL Req. 1]. Is that a quotation? I notice this happens throughout the document. If it is the TC's intent to cite SOA-TEL 1.0 as the source of the requirements, that's fine but at least do so in a way that makes sense. For example, in the introduction, say: "The requirements for SOA were developed in SOA-TEL 1.0. Those requirements form the basis for the analysis in this document." Then, when you get to 2.1.2 (and elsewhere), you say: The requirements established in SOA-TEL 1.0 for specifying endpoints following transactions are: (here quote as a block quote the requirements and do a proper citation) 2.1.3 Description (Is this a repetition of that is in 2.1.1?) 2.1.4 It isn't at all clear why the TC wishes to "specify" its musing on possible solutions. If this is supposed to be a standards document, then here specify *a* solution and in conformance, meeting this "solution" is conformance to this document. Yes? The same structure and shortfalls are repeated in: 2.2 Requirements on WS-Notification 2.3 Requirements on SOAP 3.1 Requirements on Security Token Correlation 3.2 SAML Name Identifier Request 3.3 SAML Attribute Management Request 3.4 User ID Forwarding 4.1 Cardinality of a Service Interface 4.2 Requirements on Metadata 5 Requirements on SOA collective standards usage Do note that *must* is a term you define in 1.1 Terminology and in the absence of conformance clauses you are using it *improperly*. 6 - No conformance clause = no OASIS specification or standard. It is possible to write specific use cases and then define requirements to meet those use cases. Then define conformance clauses for those requirements. That is to say it is possible to accomplish the goal set for this document, just not the way this document attempts to do it. Hope everyone is having a great day! Patrick -- Patrick Durusau patrick@durusau.net Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps) |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]