oasis-charter-discuss — archive

[William Cox <0d4373e9e1236f42ab63fd6b5b306aa39c192a@sv-exchange.fjcs.net>]

Jacques - Per the announcement that went to the tab list, comments have to go to oasis-charter-discuss. Please clip off tab-related notes and send them there. Thanks! bill Durand, Jacques R. wrote: My comments: (sorry forgot to send them by Tuesday ...) 1. The TC apparently is not supposed to produce specifications, but rather "analysis, requirements" documents. Is there any reason for operating in RAND terms (unless some future rechartering is expected, that will produce specs)? 2. "Develop a requirement document for recommended Web Services (and REST) extensions to address the Gaps ..." It seems the requirement doc will go as far as "recommending extensions" which means actually hinting at solutions, or at least defining the directions of future solutions? Could then the nature of these "extensions" be better defined in the charter? E.g. are we talking of (a) "profiling" or configuring existing SOA stacks for specific TEL use, or (b) developing specific WS on top of them, or (c) "extending" the functionality of these stacks with native functionality that goes beyond (a) and (b)? In other words, I see this as part of defining the scope of activities: what will be the technical scope of the solutions implied by the requirements? My concern is: the scope of activity and deliverables should more explicitly allow for solutions outlines / directions (if not full fledge specifications of these solutions), as I guess at some point when "requirements" meet concrete SOA environments (and concrete specs like WSDL, BPEL), the line separating "requiremetns" from "solution outlines/options" is blurred. 3. Audience for this TC: "The output of this work will have direct benefits for the use of the Web 2.0 and SOA in Telecom. " Should this be interpreted that only Telecom professionals are invited or will benefit? Could there be a line on possible interest from SOA middleware providers, as this is about requirements for their products? 4. Scope of work: there is 1.a but not 1.b secion. Missing 1.b? Jacques