[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Please review this FAQ text]
I forward an old email from Carol Geyer, of OASIS, which has some points to put in the FAQ, and also has a proposed answer to the "what is the difference" question. We can discuss this at Today's teleconf. Tom Rutt WSRM Chair -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@fsw.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
--- Begin Message ---
- From: "Carol Geyer" <carol.geyer@oasis-open.org>
- To: <karl.best@oasis-open.org>, <tom@coastin.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:52:49 -0500
Yes, it should be included with some more generic questions, such as: What is the need for this specification? Who should be involved in this development? Who will benefit from this work and how? When will this specification be completed? --Carol -----Original Message----- From: Karl F. Best [mailto:karl.best@oasis-open.org] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 5:40 PM To: tom@coastin.com Cc: carol.geyer@oasis-open.org; Jamie Clark Subject: Re: [Fwd: Please review this FAQ text Tom: Are there other topics that should also be covered in the FAQ? Surely this isn't the only aspect of the TCs work that the publlic would be interested in. -Karl Tom Rutt wrote: > Carol Geyer wrote: > I like this statement. It is correct, and makes the major Point. > >> I would hope we could provide some information that isn't contentious >> but is accurate. It's an obvious and fair question that deserves some >> kind of response on our part (even a lame one). I hate to take the >> ostrich approach, if there's anything we can say. How about something >> like: >> >> WS-Reliability is being developed within the OASIS open process, and our >> working draft, related documents and TC archives are all accessible to >> the public. We invite public review and comment on this work. >> WS-Reliable Messaging is a proprietary specification being developed >> privately at this time by a group of vendors. As the current version of >> WS-Reliable Messaging is not publicly accessible, we advise those with >> specific questions on WS-Reliable Messaging to contact its developers. >> >> >> carol >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Karl F. Best [mailto:karl.best@oasis-open.org] >> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 10:45 AM >> To: tom@coastin.com >> Cc: James Bryce Clark; 'Carol Geyer' >> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Please review this FAQ text >> >> >> Tom: >> >> Understood. If there is nothing that you can confidently say then it >> would be best to stay silent. >> >> thanks >> -Karl >> >> >> Tom Rutt wrote: >> >> >>> Karl F. Best wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Tom: >>>> >>>> May I kindly suggest that the purpose of a FAQ would be to clarify >>>> rather than to start a riot? (Okay, it's not that bad, but you know >>>> what I mean. :-) >>>> >>>> This is obviously not ready for public consumption. Specifically, you >>>> should refer to "the authors of the WS-Reliable Messaging spec" >>>> >>> >> rather >> >> >>>> than to "MIB". And it would be sufficient to state that WS-Reliable >>>> Messaging is not being developed under an open standards process, and >>>> leave it at that. The most useful thing to put in the FAQ are the >>>> technical differences. >>>> >>> >>> Unfortunately anything I say would be based on the March version of >>> >> >> the >> >> >>> MIB spec. >>> >>> They have evolved the spec, and to find out the current status I would >>> have to sign an IPR >>> agreement with those companies which I cannot, and do not want to do. >>> >>> The editor of the MIB ws-reliable messageing (chris ferris of IBM) is >>> >> >> an >> >> >>> observer to our committee. >>> >>> He sees everything we do, but we se nothing they do. >>> >>> Anthing I say could be wrong regarding the current spec. >>> >>> Quite frankly, I do not know the technical differences with what they >>> have now. >>> >>> I think it is best to keep such comparisons out of the public record >>> >> >> at >> >> >>> this time. >>> >>> Tom Rutt >>> >>> >>> >>>> Maybe Carol could help suggest some wording. >>>> >>>> Are there some other things that would go into a FAQ besides just >>>> >>> >> this >> >> >>>> issue? While I've suggested the creation of a FAQ due to a specific >>>> question that we received, we're encouraging all of our TCs to write >>>> FAQs to help increase general knowledge about the efforts. >>>> >>>> -Karl >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Tom Rutt wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Karl, >>>>> >>>>> I started working on the FAQ text, and my first cut is attached. I >>>>> sent it to several >>>>> key members of the TC to review. >>>>> >>>>> However, while writing it I realized that this could backfire. Our >>>>> TC working draft >>>>> is still in flux, and I am pretty sure their spec has evolved from >>>>> what they posted last >>>>> January. Thus any FAQ will be dated the day after it is posted. >>>>> >>>>> That is why the text in my first cut uses the term "currently" or >>>>> "current Working draft" etc. >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, I decided to forwared this first cut for you and Jamie to >>>>> review as well. >>>>> >>>>> Please do not post it on the OASIS site yet, >>>>> since it has not been reviewed by key TC members. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ -- >>>>> >>>> >> ---- >> >> >>>>> Subject: >>>>> Please review this FAQ text for Karl Best >>>>> From: >>>>> Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com> >>>>> Date: >>>>> Tue, 11 Nov 2003 17:43:31 -0800 >>>>> To: >>>>> Jacques Durand <jdurand@fsw.fujitsu.com>, Jeff Mischkinsky >>>>> <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>, Michael DeNicola >>>>> <mwdn@fsw.fujitsu.com>, Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Karl F. Best wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Tom: >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > I was asked this morning by another organization about the >>>>> difference between the >>>>> >>>>> work of the OASIS WSRM TC and the other WS-Reliable Messaging effort >>>>> from IBM, etc. I didn't have a very specific answer to give because >>>>> >>>> >> I >> >> >>>>> don't know myself; I'm assuming that the two solutions are close >>>>> technically and that the biggest differences are political. >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > Could you provide public FAQ text, available from the TC's public >>>>> web page. Something that we can point people to when they ask. >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >-Karl >>>>> >>>>> I have prepared the following text, please provide any comments >>>>> before tomorrow evening. >>>>> >>>>> --------------------- >>>>> >>>>> Question: What is the difference between the web service reliability >>>>> protocol being defined by the OASIS WSRM TC and the WS-Reliable >>>>> Messaging protocol being defined by Microsoft, IBM and others? >>>>> >>>>> One major difference is the title of the two specs. The spec the >>>>> >>>> >> spec >> >> >>>>> being prepared by the OASIS WSRM TC is called WS-reliability, while >>>>> the spec posted by Microsoft, IBM, BEA, et al, (MIB) is called >>>>> WS-Reliable Messaging. >>>>> >>>>> MIB have stated to the press that they do not want to work within a >>>>> "de facto" standards body at this time on their Reliable Messaging >>>>> spec. The OASIS WSRM TC continues to invite any interested party to >>>>> participate in the completion of our WS-Reliability spec (expected >>>>> >>>> >> to >> >> >>>>> be ready for OASIS member review early in 2004). >>>>> >>>>> When you look at the two protocols, with regards to the Soap Header >>>>> data elements each defines and their stated protocol behaviour, they >>>>> are very similar. Both protocols have the same three Relibility >>>>> features - guaranteed delivery, duplicate elimination, and ordered >>>>> delivery of a sequence of messages in the context of a group with a >>>>> global unique id. The WS-Reliability working draft calls this >>>>> >>>> >> scoping >> >> >>>>> element “GroupID”, while the WS-Reliability Messaging posted spec >>>>> calls it “SequenceID”. >>>>> >>>>> MIB have claimed that their WS-reliable messaging spec is designed >>>>> >>>> >> to >> >> >>>>> work within their Web Services architecture. They rely on WS-Policy >>>>> to convey configuration information and also to specify the use of >>>>> protocol features. >>>>> >>>>> It is the opinion of many WSRM TC members that the WS-Reliability >>>>> protocol can work in the MIB architecture every bit as well as the >>>>> MIB WS-Reliable messaging spec does. The WS-Reliability working >>>>> >>>> >> draft >> >> >>>>> does not reference WS-Policy, since our wsrm TC rules do not allow >>>>> citing non-standards track specs. However, we leave specification of >>>>> mechanisms to convey such configuration parameters outside the scope >>>>> of our protocol, and systems may use WS-Policy, outside the scope of >>>>> our protocol, to convey such information. >>>>> >>>>> For example, the WS-Reliable messaging spec, as posted, references >>>>> WS-Policy as a way for a sender to signal to the receiver that >>>>> Duplicate Elimination is required. In contrast, the WSRM TC’s >>>>> >>>> >> working >> >> >>>>> draft WS-Reliability spec uses presence of one or more of three >>>>> optional header elements to signal to the receiver that the sender >>>>> requires use of one or more of the three respective protocol >>>>> features. Instead of using WS-Policy, the presence of a >>>>> “DuplicateElimination” element in a soap header signals that >>>>> Duplicate elimination is required. >>>>> >>>>> Constructing a gateway between the two protocols, as currently >>>>> defined, would be easy. Of course, it would be much better for the >>>>> industry if such a gateway would not be required. >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------- >>>>> Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@fsw.fujitsu.com >>>>> Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ================================================================= >> Karl F. Best >> Vice President, OASIS >> office +1 978.667.5115 x206 mobile +1 978.761.1648 >> karl.best@oasis-open.org http://www.oasis-open.org >> >> >> >> > > -- ================================================================= Karl F. Best Vice President, OASIS office +1 978.667.5115 x206 mobile +1 978.761.1648 karl.best@oasis-open.org http://www.oasis-open.org--- End Message ---
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]