I'm not aware that I derided Nokia, unless you now represent Nokia, so you may want to let Frederick speak here as I did not read a issue in Frederick response to note below ? I suggest that you ask some of the other co-authors (or other companies) if feedback was accepted in subsequent revisions of the documents.
The productive approach is to move this topic off the WSS list since this topic is out of the scope to WSS, there are a set of Yahoo groups that are set-up I suggest that you join these (I think Sun has already joined (I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong) at least one of these, but seen no questions) and submit your questions and concerns to these groups.
I have to reiterate that the process is not a substitute for a standards process it is a means to prepare the specifications for a recognized standards body, the authors find this an effective process.
Anthony Nadalin | work 512.838.0085 | cell 512.289.4122
Bill Smith <Bill.Smith@Sun.COM>
05/21/2004 11:40 AM |
|
Tony,
Rather than deride Nokia for non-participation, perhaps you could point us to a document that clearly states how participants in your workshops can drive the results. You state that it is your opinion that they can. Nokia is asking that you demonstrate how. In my opinion, that would be the more productive approach.
You could start by answering some simple questions: What are the process rules for these workshops? Who governs them? How are disputes adjudicated? Answers to those questions might elicit other questions and a healthy dialogue on this topic might be established. This list wouldn't be an appropriate venue but OASIS does have a mechanism for establishing a discussion list; perhaps we should use it.
Regarding Liberty's decision to contribute a portion of our specifications to the OASIS SSTC; that decision was made by Liberty's Board after receiving a request from the SSTC itself. This was a request between organizations and was handled in the manner prescribed by both.
Your final paragraph indicates that WS-Policy "has not quite exited the process". How does it, (or any other WS-* spec) exit the process?
Bill
Anthony Nadalin wrote:
- Frederick,
Authors seem to handle differently, I disagree about your observation that "they" cannot drive the results of the process, since Nokia has chosen not to participate as an author I don't think they can comment on the process w/o inserting speculation.
I agree that authors of specification take different routes, as the Liberty authors took a different route to submit to a standards body (OASIS) that authors of other specifications have taken and as you say there pros and cons.
I believe that I did answer Oliver's question, the process is documented at the site I have and I indicated that once the process is complete its the authors (collectivity) intention to take the specifications to a standards body, this indicates that WS-Policy has not quite exited the process.
Anthony Nadalin | work 512.838.0085 | cell 512.289.4122
<Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
05/21/2004 10:18 AM |
|
We should be clear to answer Oliver's question.
The process you reference is different from an open standardization process. For example, feedback from comment session need not be incorporated, and parties participating in these sessions don't have standing similar to voting members of an OASIS TC - they cannot drive the results of the process.
Intention to approve at a standards body is different from developing an open standard in an open forum. This is not to argue that there are tradeoffs and some combination might have value, but we should be clear in answering Oliver's question.
Nobody has yet answered Olivers question regarding WS-Policy.
regards, Frederick
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Anthony Nadalin [mailto:drsecure@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 11:03 AM
To: Marc Hadley
Cc: Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM; oliver.wulff@zurich.ch; wss-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wss-comment] Public Comment
At the completion of the process documented, its the intention of all the authors that the given specification(s) be taken to the appropriate standards body (lots of factors here that authors voice as part of the feedback sessions). Is there something specific you are hunting for here ?
Anthony Nadalin | work 512.838.0085 | cell 512.289.4122
Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Sent by: Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM 05/21/2004 09:51 AM |
|
On May 21, 2004, at 9:20 AM, Anthony Nadalin wrote:
> Please see the following URL for the process that is used to take
> specifications to a standards body:
>
> http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/offers/WS-Specworkshops/
>
Can you be a bit more specific, there's no mention of standards bodies
on that page at all and I couldn't find anything by following any of
the links on that page either.
Thanks,
Marc.
>
> WS-Policy defines how the WSDL can be augmented to describe the
> functional assurance. Why is WS-Policy not a spec of OASIS? WS-Policy
> is a common spec which is used in other specs either.
>
> -Oliver
>
---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Web Products, Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
To unsubscribe from this list, send a post to wss-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org, or visit http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/.
