Hi Karl, Comments specifically regarding symmetry. Overall, I think that the spec needs an example working through a case where the initiator is the service provider. I think that there are still gaps in people's understanding about this. Let me know if you need some text - I should be able to find something I've written-up previously about this type of thing. Section 8 (which I think should be put into Section 3 - the section on how WS-Agreement *works*). In the 2nd paragraph, you say that "the obligations in the agreement are not dependent on the initiator being informed of the decision". If the initiator is the service provider, bidding for work, then this statement cannot be true. You must learn whether your bid has been accepted (and also, presumably, receive/retrieve the precise specification of the work to be done). Other symmetry-related comments from earlier in the spec. S1 - P5 - assumption of roles. I was trying to think of some text to suggest for this. But I think that you are in trouble before you get here. Reading the first couple of paragraphs again, I think that you need to state somewhere in there that the "creational offers" (a phrase which I really don't like!) can be made by either party. (Incidentally, I still feel, and always have, that there are obligations on both sides in reality. The consumer is agreeing to consume the service, e.g. provide the work in the case of the job submission example, and also to provide payment of some sort. I note that the specification still views that all obligations are on the side of the service provider.) S3 - P10. The other problem with the diagram is that it completely links the initiator and consumer roles. I agree with the comment about removing the factory - I think that this pattern is often not present. 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