Setting Some Facts Straight on WS-Reliability and WS-Security

[Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>]

As chair of the OASIS WSRM TC, I would like to offer some comments with 
respect to the following email message:
 >
 >    Subject: RE: [wss] WSS: Non-Repudiation Proposal
 >    From: Anthony Nadalin <drsecure@us.ibm.com>
 >    To: "[wss oasis] (E-mail)" <wss@lists.oasis-open.org>
 >    Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:05:35 -0500
 >
 >
 >  Ahh ... its a marriage between BPEL, WS-ReliableMessaging (not
 >  WS-Reliability) and WSS SOAP Message Security. This is pretty much
 >  laid out in the  WS-ReliableMessaging Roadmap, which covers most of
 >  the items were WS-Reliability fell short
 >
 >  Anthony Nadalin | work 512.436.9568 | cell 512.289.4122
 >

I would like to state a fact which does not seem to have been expressed 
enough. There is no technical reasons WS-Reliability 1.0 (the WSRM TC 
input, not the output) won't be usable in the same message as WS-Security.

Including detailed descriptions of particular compositions will have the 
effect of limiting future work to those few the authors imagine. 
Instead, we (the WS-RM TC and the original WS-Reliability submitters) 
are working towards a generally usable building block.  Pointers to and 
examples of composition with other specification may be provided as 
examples.

This obvious misinformation (as expressed in the above quoted email) has 
potential of derailing the work in this industry, and wasting people's 
time.  The facts do not support claims that WS-Reliability will not work 
with WS-Secruity.

OASIS can only work with specifications that are in recognized standards 
organizations with clear licensing terms that meet OASIS IPR policies. 
WS-RM and the rest of the so-called WS** roadmap doesn't meet either of 
these requirements, so our WS-RM TC has to move ahead with the plan of 
record.  Until the referenced specs are in .orgs with licensing terms, 
they cannot be presented to the OASIS WSRM TC as useful.  If they were 
to be in a .org (especially if they were members of the TC), etc. the TC 
would gladly review and decide upon their usefulness.

In general: IBM and others have an opportunity to lay out their issues 
with the WS-Reliability specification in the context of the OASIS WSRM 
TC.  Why are we hearing about their issues on the WSS list rather than 
through their open involvement in the WS-RM TC?


Tom Rutt
Chair WSRM TC
Fujitsu

-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt		email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@fsw.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133