Hi Karl, Some miscellaneous comments on the revised spec. Comments on symmetry and signed agreements to follow. (I may listen in on the telecon, but I am aware that this will not get round to people in time to be widely read before it happens.) S1.1.1 - P6 - Composability with negotiation models. I never understood this either. How would you "base" a negotiation protocol which required some sort of lengthy interaction on WS-Agreement? I wondered if this just meant that the document format would be used, and that a different, unrelated messaging protocol would be used. I'd love to see an example of what this means. S2.1 P8. I think you could greatly simplify this example by rewriting it to reflect the explanation on the list, i.e. that WS-Agreement can be used as a successor to GRAM, carrying a job description as a payload. The example as currently written has a lot of detail, and is unclear. S3 - P10, 11 Leaving symmetry to one side, I agree with the comments. I think perhaps the whole of S3 could be re-written, and greatly simplified in the process. There are sections, like the one you suggest might be out-of-scope, which can be removed. Jon. On Mar 31, 2005, at 1:23 AM, Karl Czajkowski wrote:
Jim has kindly posted version 12 of the draft, including comments and revisions by me. The comments emphasize my concerns about the existing presentation and content of some sections.
The revisions attempt to add the extensibility needed for Jon's signature problem (without actually defining any signature-related syntax) and the "async" interfaces. I also removed the Terminate operation. I am sure there are presentation problems and inconsistencies, but hopefully this is a more concrete basis for further discussion of these proposed changes.
Please ignore the appendix entirely. The main sections are intended to be normative and the appendix is unknown older content that I did not touch.
karl
https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/graap-wg/document/WS- AgreementSpecificationDraft.doc/en/12
-- Karl Czajkowski karlcz@univa.com