SOA-RM TC Conference Call,
Wednesday, Aug 02, 2017
A: Administrivia
1. Roll call
2. Note taker appointed
3. Approve minutes from previous Conf Call
4. Review Actions
B: Taskus Genuineus
5. Chair remarks
6. – Is AWS a SOA Service? (Did we come to consensus)
7. How does SOA Reference Model apply to MSA?
Link to Meeting Attendees
Link to Meeting Notes
Link to Meeting Actions
- Meeting Attendees –
Ken Laskey
Rex Brooks
Martin Smith
Michael Poulin
- Meeting Notes –
A – Administrative – Ken Laskey convened the meeting at 11:35AM ET, and chaired
1. Roll Call: Ken conducted roll call
Quorum Achieved.
2. Note Taker Assigned: Rex Brooks
3. Approved Minutes for July 19 2017. All were in favor and none were opposed
4. Review Actions and Open Issues:
Status Actions and Open Issues:
- Martin: Update initial draft SOA-MSA side-by-side.—No developments reported
- All: Review SOA-RM to identify potential areas for update.—No developments reported
B – Taskus Genuineus
5. Chair remarks—Ken started discussion on the webinar posted by Martin from Axiomatics on authorization/authentication. Ken asked if this doesn’t introduce a dependency when you use an externally produced microserice for auth? Martin said you have your own local copy and you run against your local copy. And does this account for local policy enforcement and decisions? The answer was yes it does account for policy decisions and enforcement. However one has to stay abreast of changes in governmental policies for PII and broadly applicable regulatory compliance.
Ken noted from the webinar that they separated the auth service from business service treating the PEP as a microservice that calls the PDP microservice for decision policy.
Michael summarized his email concerning how GDPR violates a key principle of SOA e.g.
“…The Article 28 requires, "The processor shall not engage another processor without prior specific or general written authorisation of the controller". In SOE, a regulation may only request the controller (customer) to set a contract with the processor (provider) in a way that obliges the latter to inform the controller of any further processing and the processor (provider) can deny it; a regulation cannot dictate an independent service to accept a contract proposed by consumer (controller).”
This is something we can’t affect much, but this regulation is unworkable according to our consensus.
6. Is AWS a SOA Service? (Did we come to consensus?) — Martin holds that they are a classic multi-tenant, shared service.
Michael questioned this as just a standardized interface that hides all of its details behind the interface. Michael asked if this sort of complete encapsulation allows them to actually offer different services behind the scenes, e.g. location/parameters of datacenters offered/used in relation to location of a mobile user, for instance.. So, Michael asks, does this still qualify as a SOA Service if it doesn’t offer some contractual information about the capabilities and execution context of the service?
Ken noted that the SOA RM handles this by being essentially indifferent to the specializations of a service capability. Ken asked Michael and Martin if they could add their clarifications to the bullet points culled out of today’s notes.
7. How does SOA Reference Model apply to MSA? Next Steps for the Committee Note. Rex suggested approaching the Committee Note as two main sections with the first being the based on Martin’s work on a side-by-side comparison of SOA and MSA coming to a conclusion that MSA is the logical progression of SOA. This could be paralleled by an examination of the progression of development methodology from the Monolith-based Waterfall model t- the Lean-Agile/DevOps team-ownership model of Microservice development and improvement/maintenance. The second section would focus on the examination of AWS as a SOA Service using the discussions in our meeting notes and bullet points to include consideration of the possible impact of the GDPR as it relates to the examination of AWS as SOA Service.
Martin suggested that we might want to undertake a revision of the SOA-RM by adding update sections to the SOA-RM document.
Ken brought up his recent work in compiling a set of buzzwords/bullet points contained in the discussion/hype of the ongoing development of the Lean-Agile/DevOps methodology focusing on continuous development/testing/delivery and how his conclusions run parallel to the approach of … (Ken to fill out this(these) paragraph(s) and add underlined portions as Bullet Points for Committee Note).
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 PM ET. Next meeting in 2 weeks—August 16, 2017.
Bullet points for Committee Note:
(Note: feature statements about microservices carry the implied question: How does this fit with the RM?)
· Is AWS a SOA Service?
o Martin holds that they are a classic multi-tenant, shared service.
o Michael questioned this as just a standardized interface that hides all of its details behind the interface. So, Michael asks, does this still qualify as a SOA Service if it doesn’t offer some contractual information about the capabilities and execution context of the service?
· Rex suggested approaching the Committee Note as two main sections
o Martin’s work on a side-by-side comparison of SOA and MSA coming to a conclusion that MSA is the logical progression of SOA and progression of development methodology from the Monolith-based Waterfall model to the Lean-Agile/DevOps team-ownership model of Microservice development and improvement/maintenance.
o Examination of AWS as a SOA Service -- impact of the GDPR as it relates to the examination of AWS as SOA Service.
· Ken suggested (Ken to fill in)
- Actions carried forward –
- Martin: Update initial draft template for side-by-side comparison of SOA vs. Microservices Architecture
- Ken: Circulate results of initial review of SOA-RM for potential update
-
-
- New Actions –
- None
- Parking Lot –
- Peter: Complete a zip file for SOA-RAF UML Models and load to KAVI
- Ken: Peter Brown/Ken finalize adjudication of comments received as a result of review of OASIS SOA-RM by IEEE.
- All: Gather Statements of Use
- Ken: Will coordinate with William as to when Ken can put discussion of his “patterns” write-up on the TC meeting agenda..
3