Re: [ggf-ogsa-sec-wg] Two documents

[Michael Helm <helm@fionn.es.net>]

"Olle Mulmo" writes:
> list and asked up-front how we are to deal with bottom-up approaches
> in this WG (see mail archives), as they will surely appear sooner or

How about "pragmatic" ... bottom-up has strange connotations!

> My non-initiated suggestion is to break this WG into two: a research
> group that continues the work on the roadmap, laying out the long-term,
> high-level architecture; and a WG that operates in the web services space,
> discussing the nitty-gritty protocol details of various service specs.

I think this is an excellent idea.  One of my colleagues has suggested
that this is a whole entire area, and should be broken up into
a zillion wg's, probably one for every spoke on the famous wagon-wheel
slide.  Having gone thru such a transition in another place, I  have
some reservations about that.  But a split as Olle described looks
helpful.   Some of us are interested in the architecture, but are 
unsure what exactly needs to be done ; there are many dependencies
in the architecture on things that don't exist in standards bodies
that have just begun work, as well as opportunities to do work
in areas that look more mature (like xkms or saml).  Decoupling
at least releases an inhibition against starting work.