[OGSA-BES-WG] Tracker Resolution Descriptions

[Maguire_Tom at emc.com]

Just for the record WS-RF and WS-Transfer convergence has been published.
It is called WS-ResourceTransfer and it was published 8/31/06...

http://devresource.hp.com/drc/specifications/wsrt/index.jsp
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/specification/ws-wsrt/
http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/webservices/understanding/specs/defaul
t.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dnglobspec/html/wsmgmtspecindex.asp?frame=true#ws
mgmtspecindex_ws-rt

Tom

_______________________________________________
Tom Maguire
+1(845) 729-4806


-----Original Message-----
From: ogsa-bes-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-bes-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On
Behalf Of Christopher Smith
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 1:53 PM
To: Mail list for ogsa-bes-wg working group
Cc: ogsa-bes-wg at ggf.org
Subject: Re: [OGSA-BES-WG] Tracker Resolution Descriptions

On 06/9/06 10:50, "Peter G. Lane" <lane at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

>> 
>> My main reason for not wanting to make use of one of the resource
modelling
>> approaches has to do with the burden of implementation. If Platform buys
>> into one of these resource models, we no longer have to implement one
simple
>> spec and test compliance of that specification, but we need to implement
and
>> test compliance on a suite of specifications, for (in my opinion) no
extra
>> benefit. You might say that once you've implemented a resource modelling
>> suite of specifications, you can use it over and over and thus amortize
the
>> cost of this implementation. But even at a small cost, it's not one that
I'm
>> willing to take, as the implementation of standards specifications is one
>> feature in a sea of features that we implement from product release to
>> product release.
> 
> Fair enough. Out of curiosity, though, if WSRF and WS-Transfer get
reconciled,
> does this mean 
> Platform will still opt not to implement a second spec? If on the other
hand
> they would be willing
> to implement such a spec, would they be ok with deprecating the
> GetAttributesDocument operation at
> that time?
> 
I believe that the reconciliation will have a positive effect, in that it
will give tooling vendors a better feeling about these specifications, and
hopefully they will implement some abstractions that we can use. My position
is that I want to stay out of the WS tools business.

I have no problem with updating specs later, including the deprecation of
operations, etc. I see it as the natural evolution of the standard.

-- Chris

--
  ogsa-bes-wg mailing list
  ogsa-bes-wg at ogf.org
  http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-bes-wg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3654 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ogsa-bes-wg/attachments/20060906/a35c02eb/attachment-0001.bin