Re: David's concerns

[Nicholas Kassem <nick.kassem@eng.sun.com>]

Thanks for this note John. I for one welcome IBM's contribution in this 
area and am looking forward to seeing this work refined and improved upon 
in an open, collegial, and collaborative manner.

Regards,
Nick

At 01:31 PM 7/20/2000 +0100, john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com wrote:

>Rather than  add further inserts to posts on the server, I thought I'd
>address the tone of David's concerns directly.
>
>Over the last few months it has become increasingly apparent that TPAml
>has considerable synergy with the aims and objectives of ebXML both within
>the TRP and BP working groups. It therefore seemed appropriate to offer the
>specification as a technology to ebXML rather than let it stay with OASIS
>where we originally submitted it in February. The response at the Boston
>face to face and the subsequent reaction from Bruce in organising a meeting
>at DISA confirms this.
>
>The offering of  a technology or specification for public scrutiny is part
>of the standards process so I am puzzled by David's assertion that he is
>surprised the TRP group is accepting something proprietary from IBM. If
>that were the case, then we would not have allowed Fujitsu to make their
>valuable contribution on reliable messaging to the meeting in Boston. Also
>the likes of SOAP that started as a proprietary technology would not see
>the light of day as a standard. At the time we released the TPAml spec to
>OASIS there was some criticism of IBM regarding the choice of OASIS rather
>than ebXML. We have now addressed that.
>
>As Marty states in his note, the TPAml spec is open for discussion and the
>contribution of everyone involved in ebXML from whatever working group is
>most welcome.
>
>Cheers,
>John
>
>MQSeries Technical Strategy & Planning,
>IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park,
>Winchester, SO21 2JN
>
>Tel: +44 (0)1962 815188
>Fax: +44 (0)1962 816898
>Notes Id: John Ibbotson/UK/IBM
>email: john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com