Proposed Charter for OASIS SOA for Telecom TC

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