Hi all,
A very good question! ("can you define the goals of the BOF more precisely other than "not WSRF"?) I sent this email in part to hear from the community how "broad" they might like it to be. That is, we're being flexible. If someone wants to talk about one of these specific topics, we will certainly try our best to accommodate.
I think that different people will see this from different angles, and if we don't understand the different "problems" involved the BOF can get messy. So let me try to decompose the problem, hoping that it will help the steering of the BOF. (1) Are multiple base profiles OK to begin with?
Let me answer the question in a different way. GGF Chair Mark Linesch said [...]
Yes, but some of us (I included) think that multiple base profiles is a bad idea, no matter what Mark Linesch said. Suffices to say that this is a religious discussion, in which all sides have strong opinions beforehand, spend a long time in a heated discussion, but nobody is be able to change anybody else's opinion. The ones we had in the OGSA-WG weren't fun. Try to steer the discusion past that one (or around it), so that we can get to the next problem: (2) How do the protocols sets in this area (the WSRF+WSN set, and the WS-Transfer etc. set) compare to each other? That one should be an interesting one, especially to end FUD. I'm looking forward to what you have to say. That should give the background to: (3) What are the plans for the "WS-I-only" profile?
Here is the information that Steven Newhouse provided for the GGF organizers:
"A BOF meeting to discuss the creation of a WG to define an OGSA Basic Profile that builds upon a minimal set of simple web services. The output of
This seems to be the main subject of the BOF, right? As you said, you are being flexible, and you have an interest in (2), but if we don't take care we won't even get to (3) in 1 1/2 hour. Anything else? Regards, Fred Maciel Hitachi America R&D