[ogsa-wg] OGSA-MWS-BOF at GGF14 on Tues June 28, noon-1:30

[Marty Humphrey]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Maguire [mailto:tmaguire at us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 4:52 PM
> To: Marty Humphrey
> Cc: 'Ogsa-Wg'; owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org
> Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-MWS-BOF at GGF14 on Tues June 28, noon-1:30
> 
> owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org wrote on 06/22/2005 04:13:17 PM:
> 
> > Three alternate answers:
> >
> > [1] MS has been giving *public* talks (I attended one two weeks ago) in
> > which they publicly stated that they believed that "everything" would be
> in
> > standards bodies within a year. I asked the speaker specifically with
> regard
> > to WS-SecureConversation, WS-Trust, and WS-Management and the speaker
> said
> > yes. I believe I followed up privately regarding WS-Transfer,
> > WS-Enumeration, and WS-Eventing, and he said yes. He said that certain
> > things are out of their control, of course, but that every intention is
> to
> > have them these specs in standards bodies by the end of the year. Yes, I
> > understand that this is an easy statement to attack, but I tend to
> believe
> > him (MS realizes that every day these are NOT in a standards body is an
> > opportunity lost, right?) Yes, I understand that the world is not so
> simple,
> > but I tend to believe them.
> 
> If you wish to believe this that is your perogative.  I on the other hand
> will wait and not hold my breath.  As to opportunity lost; what is the
> incentive to standardize if developers are happy to work with specs that
> are not standardized?
> 

I find this statement curious. Isn't this *PRECISELY* what we're talking
about? That is, YOU (and I assume that you are not alone in this concern)
are reluctant to pursue these specs in part because they're not
standardized. So saying that "developers are happy to work with specs that
are not standardized" doesn't seem quite right.


> > [2] Given that Don Ferguson and Francisco Curbera of IBM are co-authors
> of
> > WS-Eventing, and given that you're employed by IBM, I would turn this
> around
> > and ask you to see if you can ask internally to find out some
> > publicly-disclosable answers, which you could then share with the rest
> of
> > the community.
> 
> As I mentioned in earlier thread typically co-authors are contractually
> obliged to one another with regard to joint work (read specs).  Those
> agreements
> usually spell out ALL of the details of the joint work up to and including
> how agreement would be reached among the co-authors to bring to an SDO.
> Typically those joint agreements would preclude unilateral action on any
> one parties part with respect to the joint works.  Additionally, some of
> those agreements preclude disclosure of the agreement details.
> With that in mind, IBM as a co-author of WS-Eventing intends to bring the
> WS-Eventing specification forward with the co-authors at some point.
> However, there is no definitive date and as a forward looking statement
> this statement of intent is subject to changes in business imperatives.

While I understand that this can occur, I have no direct experience with
this regard. I appreciate your comments here to clear things up. I (perhaps
naively) am hoping for the best.

-- marty
 
Marty Humphrey
Assistant Professor
Department of Computer Science
University of Virginia