[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Please review this FAQ text]

[Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>]

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 ---