[graap-wg] updated draft - symmetry

[Jon MacLaren]

Hi Karl,

Comments specifically regarding symmetry.  Overall, I think that the  
spec needs an example  working through a case where the initiator is  
the service provider.  I think that there are still gaps in people's  
understanding about this.  Let me know if you need some text - I should  
be able to find something I've written-up previously about this type of  
thing.


Section 8 (which I think should be put into Section 3 - the section on  
how WS-Agreement *works*).

In the 2nd paragraph, you say that "the obligations in the agreement  
are not dependent on the initiator being informed of the decision".  If  
the initiator is the service provider, bidding for  work, then this  
statement cannot be true.  You must learn whether your bid has been  
accepted (and also, presumably, receive/retrieve the precise  
specification of the work to be done).

Other symmetry-related comments from earlier in the spec.

S1 - P5 - assumption of roles.  I was trying to think of some text to  
suggest for this.  But I think that you are in trouble before you get  
here.  Reading the first couple of paragraphs again, I think that you  
need to state somewhere in there that the "creational offers" (a phrase  
which I really don't like!) can be made by either party.

(Incidentally, I still feel, and always have, that there are  
obligations on both sides in reality.  The consumer is agreeing to  
consume the service, e.g. provide the work in the case of the job  
submission example, and also to provide payment of some sort.  I note  
that the specification still views that all obligations are on the side  
of the service provider.)

S3 - P10.  The other problem with the diagram is that it completely  
links the initiator and consumer roles.  I agree with the comment about  
removing the factory - I think that this pattern is often not present.

Jon.


On Mar 31, 2005, at 1:23 AM, Karl Czajkowski wrote:
> Jim has kindly posted version 12 of the draft, including comments and
> revisions by me. The comments emphasize my concerns about the existing
> presentation and content of some sections.
>
> The revisions attempt to add the extensibility needed for Jon's
> signature problem (without actually defining any signature-related
> syntax) and the "async" interfaces.  I also removed the Terminate
> operation.  I am sure there are presentation problems and
> inconsistencies, but hopefully this is a more concrete basis for
> further discussion of these proposed changes.
>
> Please ignore the appendix entirely.  The main sections are intended
> to be normative and the appendix is unknown older content that I did
> not touch.
>
>
> karl
>
> https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/graap-wg/document/WS- 
> AgreementSpecificationDraft.doc/en/12
>
>
> -- 
> Karl Czajkowski
> karlcz at univa.com
>