Savas' email bounced. -- Hiro Kishimoto Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] Paper proposing "evolutionary vertical design efforts" Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:52:03 -0800 From: "Savas Parastatidis" <Savas.Parastatidis@microsoft.com> I am not familiar with GFD-I.59. From your description, is it right to assume that even the WS-RF-based profile is going to be informational given that WS-RF and related specs were not standards at the time the work on the profile started? -- Savas Parastatidis http://savas.parastatidis.name

...

-----Original Message----- From: Hiro Kishimoto [mailto:hiro.kishimoto@jp.fujitsu.com] Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 6:11 PM To: Maguire_Tom@emc.com Cc: Marvin Theimer; ogsa-wg@ggf.org; Savas Parastatidis; Tony Hey; humphrey@cs.virginia.edu; gcf@grids.ucs.indiana.edu Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Paper proposing "evolutionary vertical design efforts"

Hi Tom,

You are absolutely right. If the upcoming HPC profile refers to non- standard spec(s), it should be categorized as "informational." ---- Hiro Kishimoto

Maguire_Tom@emc.com wrote:

...

...

...

I appreciate and agree with the perspective that suggests that OGSA functionality be profiled using existing agreed upon specifications. Are you suggesting WS-Security, WS-Trust, WS-SecureConversation, and WS-ReliableMessaging as those common, agreed upon, non-controversial specifications? Some of these are at Standard (WS-Security), some

are

...

...

...

at committee draft (WS-ReliableMessaging) and some of them are at editor drafts (WS-Trust, WS-SecureConversation). The GGF guidelines for OGSA Profile Definition (GFD-I.59) would require that a profile based on these specifications be classified as an Informational Profile (given the current state of the specifications). Further I would like to point out that the normative thorn in the side here

...

continues to be WS-Policy.

...

...

...

Thanks, Tom

Mobile: +1-845-729-4806

...

...

...

...

=20