[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Web Services Federation Language (WS-Federation)

• To: Bill de hÓra <bill@d...>
• Subject: Re: Web Services Federation Language (WS-Federation)
• From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>
• Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:41:06 -0400
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• Organization: Booz Allen Hamilton
• References: <12d.2d2f7734.2c3d38f3@a...> <3F0C08D3.1B9B3888@b...> <3F0CA2C7.6090903@d...>

<Quote1>
That would be good, but it would be better if there was just one. 
There are enough (some, half-baked) reliability specs out there.
</Quote1>

This issue (justifiably or not) has caused quite a stir on the OASIS
WS-RM TC which I am a member of [1].

<Quote2>
> So that is 3 out of (approximately) 18 GSA specifications. My hope is
> that more GXA specifications will follow suit.

Aside from the obvious 'why do we need 18 ws-glob specs?'.. is 
anybody implementing these things?
</Quote2>

Not certain about specific implementations beyond .NET [2]. Regarding
the number of specs, they are each very focused on a specific aspect of
Web services (security, transactional capabilities, coordination,
routing, policies etc.) - so rather than have one or 2 monolithic
specifications, the GXA authors have chosen to create a larger number of
focused, pluggable, specifications. One might view this as a very wise
approach.

Kind Regards,
Joe Chiusano
Booz | Allen | Hamilton

[1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrm/200307/msg00008.html
[2] http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/building/wse/default.aspx
Bill de hÓra wrote:
> 
> Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> 
> > "This WS-Federation Specification is an initial public draft release and
> > is provided for review and evaluation only. BEA, IBM, Microsoft, RSA
> > Security and VeriSign hope to solicit your contributions and suggestions
> > in the near future."
> >
> > I think the reasoning is that the spec is not yet ripe enough for public
> > comments.
> 
> Then perhaps it has no business being aired in public (but I doubt
> that's the reason anyway Joe).
> 
> > The authors of the Specification intend to submit a revised version of
> > the Specification to a standards body with a commitment to grant a
> > royalty-free license to their necessary patents.  We need assurance that
> > your feedback and discussions are consistent with that goal.
> > </Announcement>
> 
> That would be good, but it would be better if there was just one.
> There are enough (some, half-baked) reliability specs out there.
> 
> > So that is 3 out of (approximately) 18 GSA specifications. My hope is
> > that more GXA specifications will follow suit.
> 
> Aside from the obvious 'why do we need 18 ws-glob specs?'.. is
> anybody implementing these things?
> 
> Bill de hÓra
> --
> Propylon
> www.propylon.com
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> 
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>

begin:vcard 
n:Chiusano;Joseph
tel;work:(703) 902-6923
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.bah.com
org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team
adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012;
version:2.1
email;internet:chiusano_joseph@b...
title:Senior Consultant
fn:Joseph M. Chiusano
end:vcard

• References:
  • Re: Web Services Federation Language (WS-Federation)
    • From: AndrewWatt2000@a...
  • Re: Web Services Federation Language (WS-Federation)
    • From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>
  • Re: Web Services Federation Language (WS-Federation)
    • From: Bill de hÓra <bill@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Motivations for namespaces (sorry)
• Next by Date: RE: Motivations for namespaces (sorry)
• Previous by thread: Re: Web Services Federation Language (WS-Federation)
• Next by thread: Document Structure Description (DSD)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread