[graap-wg] url for the Web Services Policy WG in W3C

[Andreas Savva]

Asit,

Thank you for the detailed response.

I am not objecting to aligning WS-Agreement to other standard WS specs.
My objection is specific to the status of WS-Policy. Simply put, we
think that standards should build on standards. Not on drafts, public or
otherwise. WS-Policy has been submitted to the W3C (a good thing) but
this is just the beginning of the standardization process for that spec.
Can anyone claim that the final product of the WS-Policy WG will be
exactly the same as this initial submission? For me this out weighs any
benefit that might be obtained from making a point that should be
obvious to people familiar with the specifications anyway.

I would like to see the WS-Agreement specification, which already has a
number of implementations, published. It's been in draft mode too long.

Andreas

Asit Dan wrote:
> 
> Andreas,
>     We didn't have a discussion on this in our weekly call.   As Karl
> and Toshi noted  that this is a trivial change (and Heiko provided a
> validated schema with this change), so from a pure technical
> implementation viewpoint this doesn't impact  the spec even at this late
> stage.  
> 
> I believe this is a very important issue, and we should have a well
> reasoned and well articulated position on this for the wider audience --
> whatever may be the final decision of the group.  The issue will keep
> coming up as the wider audience (Web Services community) will fail to
> grasp the strong objections of this group to aligning this spec to WS*
> stack, and WS-Policy in particular.  I believe the goal of this group is
> to make WS-Agreement  specification to be adopted by the wider Web
> Services community, and not to be perceived as something niche for job
> scheduling or just "Grid-thingy".   Off course, in the same spirit, I
> (we) have equally strongly advocated to the JSDL community for
> leveraging this spec in specifying flexible scheduling objectives.
> 
> There are several benefits from this change: better alignment and
> acceptance by the broader WS* community and also avoiding confusion on
> SLA vs Policy.  A wide spectrum of folks I hear from in my everyday
> activities (architects, developers, customers, analysts...)  don't quite
> distinguish SLA and Policy.   [ Off course, that's not my position.]
>  Typical comments I hear -- are you using WS-Policy  in specifying
> service level assertions?  By embracing the use of WS-Policy as an
> envelope for agreement terms we not only avoid this confusion but also
> easily demonstrate what additional aspects are being covered by WS-Ag
> spec.  Finally, in the runtime enforcement environments (service
> registry, monitoring system, workload manager, ... ) SLA derived
> enforcement policies can be represented uniformly.
> 
> Given that WS-Policy draft (that has been submitted to W3C) is very
> stable - has been co-authored by representatives from several
> organizations, already implemented by many vendors and many other OASIS
> standards on security, transaction, reliability, etc. dependent on this
> spec -  and changes to the current draft of WS-Ag spec is minimal (not
> surprising, since we started with WS-Policy for term composition), there
> are many good reasons to embrace WS-Policy now. In any case, it's a
> public document (W3C), and we can make WS-Ag   spec dependent only on
> the submitted draft.
> 
> Regards.
> Asit Dan, Ph.D.
> SWG SOA Design Requirements
> Phone: (914) 766-1767  
> Internet: asit at us.ibm.com
> ICSOC 06 PC Chair (http://www.icsoc.org)
> 
> 
> *Karl Czajkowski <karlcz at univa.com>*
> Sent by: owner-graap-wg at ggf.org
> 
> 06/28/2006 03:20 AM
> 
> 	
> To
> 	Andreas Savva <andreas.savva at jp.fujitsu.com>
> cc
> 	"'GRAAP-WG'" <graap-wg at gridforum.org>, Toshiyuki Nakata
> <t-nakata at cw.jp.nec.com>, Asit Dan/Watson/IBM at IBMUS
> Subject
> 	Re: [graap-wg] url for the Web Services Policy WG in W3C
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. It doesn't seem to add much to WS-Agreement at this point,
> and I think people who want to engage in an "SLA and policy"
> discussion should be able to observe the trivial mapping necessary
> to understand our compositions as policy composition.
> 
> karl
> 
> 
> On Jun 28, Andreas Savva modulated:
> ...
>> I've read Toshi's previous email on pros/cons and I agree with him. I
>> think at this point (one step before publication of the WS-Agreement
>> spec) making a change that brings back a dependency on a specification
>> that is about to enter the standardization process is not a good idea.
>>
>> --
>> Andreas Savva
>>
> 
> -- 
> Karl Czajkowski
> karlcz at univa.com
> 
> 

-- 
Andreas Savva
Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd