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

[Jon MacLaren]

I know that I'm not a particularly active member of this group any  
more - nor the most ardent advocate of WS-Agreement ;-)

But I have to say that I agree wholeheartedly with Andreas and Karl.   
This spec really needs to get published, and out into the world as  
soon as possible.  Experience with building real systems is going to  
be crucial for developing future iterations of the spec.

(Anyway, how else will we get to the point where you all realize that  
I was right about phased commit?)

Cheers,

Jon.


On Jul 5, 2006, at 5:45 AM, Karl Czajkowski wrote:
> On Jul 05, Andreas Savva modulated:
>> 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
>>
>
> I agree with this sentiment.  I also suggest that we not ignore the
> possibility of a minor "point release" to generate a new updated
> WS-Agreement spec with new namespaces and possibly this WS-Policy
> dependency when such a standard is finalized.
>
> I think we put too much emphasis on trying to find one perfect
> snapshot, rather than accepting different snapshots for different
> purposes.  The existing implementors have an interest in standardizing
> their services.  Some of us (like me ;-) expect further experience w/
> the first WS-Agreement standard to likely inform changes for a future
> version, since this whole area is underexplored in practice.
>
> Clearly, nobody is advocating that we put out one WS-Agreement spec
> and then retire forever since it is perfect...
>
> karl
>
> -- 
> Karl Czajkowski
> karlcz at univa.com
>