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

[Asit Dan]

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060628/bb4c0249/attachment.html