OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wss message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: RE: [wss] The Web Services Roadmap (Action #6)


Title: Message
Hi all,
 
    I support Joel's comments and add a few more of mine.
 
    Any standards work requires a context and an architecture - either explicit or implicit. The TC has to select a set of problems to solve, based on an overall picture of the state of things. When questions about features arise, it would be good to have a box (preferably outside the current scope :o)) to point out and say "this feature goes there and not here".
 
    To summarize, I look at the roadmap document as ONE of the inputs (* not THE input *) in this regard. Now that we are on the subject, I think the name "road map" is misnomer, IMHO it should be "preliminary architecture". I also see the TC to influence and offer (non-normative) suggestions to this document. 
 
cheers
-----Original Message-----
From: Munter, Joel D [mailto:joel.d.munter@intel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 11:43 AM
To: wss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wss] The Web Services Roadmap (Action #6)

imho,
 
the purpose of having the document submitted is to place the ws-security, its appendum, and future related submissions within their intended context.  the ws-security and the addendum documents did not simply fall out of the air into our laps; they were submitted by the direct intent on the authors because they fill a need documented within the roadmap document. 
 
i feel that it does no harm to accept the document into the WSS TC and simply allow TC members to read it if they wish.  as we work on the WSS TC deliverables over the next few months, it may help us to deliver a set of ws-security specifications that are relevant to the discussions included within the roadmap.  it need not be directly referenced in any future WSS TC deliverable.  i compare this to a set of pre-reading instructions that was provided to me before working within the w3c wsawg.  e.g., "...here are the doc's, we recommend reading them before starting this work..." 
 
in general, i do not feel strongly one way or the other here.  however, if the WSS TC will continue on well past simply delivering a coherent set of WS-Security specifications and will take on more challenges (as discussed within the WS-Roadmap), then i am more more strongly in favoring of seeing the roadmap document submitted and accepted by this WSS TC.
 
joel
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Kelvin Lawrence [mailto:klawrenc@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 9:45 AM
To: wss@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: ckaler@microsoft.org
Subject: [wss] The Web Services Roadmap (Action #6)


On the TC call today, I took an action to post an e-mail regarding the Roadmap action item (#6 on the actions list). At the F2F meeting on September 4th & 5th, the Chairs (Chris and I) took an action to investigate having IBM and Microsoft submit the Web Services Security Roadmap to the TC as a non-normative document. The status on this action is that Chris and I are working with our respective colleagues to investigate this. However, at the call today, a question was asked along the lines of "why is this necessary and what was the intention to do with the Roadmap given our clarified charter specifically states that we will not evolve a roadmap". Further, the point was made that the document is public on the web and that we do not intend to quote from it directly. It was suggested that by having the roadmap submitted we at least had a snapshot of the document as it was when the original WS-Security document was submitted to th! e TC. It was also mentioned that we reference other documents that we do not have "official copies" of in our TC document repository. No one on the call today was able to fully clarify what the purpose of the Roadmap document once submitted would be.. Therefore, I agreed to post this e-mail and ask the TC members to please clarify the intended use/purpose of the roadmap once submitted and also to re-assess how strong an issue this is. While we (the chairs) are more than happy to pursue this action, it would be useful to know that we are spending energy on the right issues.

Let's discuss here and decide if there is a strong enough desire for Chris and I to aggressively pursue this.

Many thanks
Kelvin


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC