RE: nick some brief action required on your part to resolve... thanks,rik

[Rik Drummond <rvd2@worldnet.att.net>]

Nick, i believe it is ready to implement. i also believe poc will believe
that next week. as to what poc has to implement, is completely poc's
decision, unless the stc decides to get involved.... which they should not.
you have a tiger by the tail and everyone should leave you and your team
alone to do the job.... so don't take my comments as negative or non
supportive.. i have seen you pull off two miracles, the historic poc stuff,
and i am sure i will see it again. at this point i would be thinking
KISS........ that would be my focus to guarantee success.... go get them....
and good luck (luck has nothing to do with it)   best regards, rik

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Kassem [mailto:Nick.Kassem@eng.sun.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:39 PM
To: Rik Drummond; shima@rp.open.cs.fujitsu.co.jp
Cc: ebxml-Poc
Subject: Re: nick some brief action required on your part to resolve...
thanks, rik


Dear POCers,

Frankly this is a storm in a tea cup from my pov. The main issue is the
lack of consensus within POC wrt RM (as well as security and error
handling). My hope is that we can build up this consensus in our f2f next
week. We still need to see a use-case tabled for RM and for there to be a
thorough review of the spec itself *within* POC. The goal is to have an
*interoperable* RM. Most of us know how to build reliable messaging so
that's not the issue.

As an aside but equally important - Rik, you need to understand that just
because a WG claims they have a spec does not mandate the POC to implement
that spec and I am not referring to the RM spec per.se. (frankly it's one
of the better ones I have seen). Clearly the POC can't go off and write a
spec, implement it and claim ebXML conformance. That would be ridiculous.
But it can most certainly choose not to implement a spec that is very much
a work-in-progress.

I have also observed statements along the lines, "but this is good enough
for now for POC to implement". Seems to me that this is rather
presumptuous. I think you should allow the POC participants to make the
determination of  what is easy, meaningful or useful to build. After all
it's the POC participants spending the time and *resources*. We are not
here simply to tackle "easy" problems nor are we pre-occupied with finding
paths of least resistance. We need to confront the tough requirements and
deal with them in a meaningful and collegial manner.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Nick

p.s. I have just seen draft .21d of the TRP spec where error handling, RM
and security is being pulled together. When will this be public ? One can
not tackle RM (in a comprehensive manner, IMHO) in isolation from Error
handling and the rest of MS.

At 04:41 AM 10/12/2000 -0500, Rik Drummond wrote:


>-----Original Message-----
>From: SHIMAMURA Masayoshi [mailto:shima@rp.open.cs.fujitsu.co.jp]
>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:09 AM
>To: Rik Drummond
>Cc: ebxml-poc@lists.ebxml.org; Jim Hughes; Kazunori Iwasa; Jacques
>Durand
>Subject: Re: Confusion on RM
>
>
>Dear Mr. Rik Drummond,
>
>I believe that the Reliable Messaging specification v0-080 is enough for
>demonstration of the reliable messaging on November.
>
>It seems that Mr. Nicholas Kassem think there is a problem in the spec,
>but we have been still not received specific issue in the specification
> >from him. If we receive his issue's information, I'm happy to modify the
>specification to resolve the issue as soon as possible so that POC team
>members can implement and test the reliable messaging demo in the end of
>this month. Would you ask Mr. Nicholas Kassem to show the issue's
>information again?
>
>On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 07:59:22 -0500
>Rik Drummond <rvd2@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > yes please make comments on the spec as soon as possible so that we may
>make
> > it clearer or modify it techncally to make it better.... rik
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nicholas Kassem [mailto:nick.kassem@eng.sun.com]
> > Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 3:28 PM
> > To: Ebxml-Poc
> > Subject: Confusion on RM
> >
> >
> > Dear POCers,
> >
> > In reviewing the POC material over the week-end it is clear that there
is
> > some confusion over what was meant by Reliable Messaging in the POC
>matrix.
> > Most of us support Relaible Messaging in some shape or form (which we
can
> > not show in Tokyo). The question that needs answering is who is
committed
> > to optionally show ebXML RM (Ver0.080) at the Tokyo POC. I plan to raise
> > this for discussion on our weekly conf. call so please  take the time
and
> > read the spec (again). Thanks in advance.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Nick
> >
> > p.s. Keep in mind that one of the key roles POC plays is to provide
> > feed-back to other WGs. So if you aren't happy with the RM Spec and plan
> > not to support it on technical grounds, ebXML TRP needs your input.
>
>Regards,
>
>--
>SHIMAMURA Masayoshi
>E-mail: shima@rp.open.cs.fujitsu.co.jp
>TEL:+81-45-476-4590(ext.7128-4241)  FAX:+81-45-476-4726(ext.7128-6783)
>Planning Dep., Strategic Planning Div., Software Group, FUJITSU LIMITED