The document outlines the progress and submissions regarding a platform-independent model for web-enabled DDS, detailing various proposals received from multiple parties. It highlights differences among these proposals, emphasizes the need for reconciliation of object models, and discusses the integration of session management and access control. Key tasks and considerations for future developments, including compliance points and data representation formats, are also identified.

1. Web-Enabled DDS:
Revised Submission
MARS – Minneapolis, MN – June 2010
Presenter: Rick Warren, RTI
Submitting POCs:
 Angelo Corsaro, PrismTech:
angelo.corsaro@prismtech.com
 Hugues Vincent, Thales:
hugues.vincent@thalesgroup.com
 Rick Warren, RTI:
rick.warren@rti.com
document number: mars/10-06-02

2. Specification Process
RFP issued: September 2009 (San Antonio)
Initial submissions: March 2010 (Jacksonville)
 PrismTech
 RTI and eProsima, joint
 Thales
Revised submission: June 2010 (Minneapolis)
 All submitters, joint
 mars/10-05-03
Copyright © 2010 RTI - All rights Reserved 2

3. Progress Since Initial Submissions
Proposals consolidated into single document
 Alternatives appear side by side
 No attempt at reconciliation yet
Submitters’ meeting scheduled this week
Copyright © 2010 RTI - All rights Reserved 3

4. Differences Among Proposals: PIM
Object model proposed by RTI+eProsima
 Drastically simplified DDS model
 Procedural style
Object model proposed by Thales
 Somewhat simplified DDS model
 DDS LwCCM model
 OO/CRUD-oriented hybrid style
Access-control, session models
proposed by RTI+eProsima
Copyright © 2010 RTI - All rights Reserved 4

5. Differences Among Proposals: PSMs
SOAP PSM
 Proposed by
RTI+eProsima, Thales
REST PSM
 Proposed by all
submitters
Other PSMs (e.g.
RSS, Atom, XMPP)
 Nothing proposed yet
 Thales may provide
RSS and/or Atom
later
 Other contributions
welcome
Follow naturally
from PIMs
Copyright © 2010 RTI - All rights Reserved 5

6. TODO: Platform-Independent Model
Reconcile basic object model
 Q: How much of DDS should it expose?
 Tradeoff: Ease of use vs. expressiveness
 Q: Object-oriented vs. resource-oriented?
 Tradeoff: Ease of SOAP mapping vs. REST mapping
Layer DDS for LwCCM
 Q: To what extent is it alternative vs. supplemental?
 Q: What is relation to non-DDS LwCCM ports, connectors?
Integrate session management, access control
 Q: How to isolate users from one another?
 Prevent unauthorized access
 Prevent undesirable interference
 Q: How to integrate with existing standards/practices?
 e.g. WS-Security for SOAP, OpenID for REST
Copyright © 2010 RTI - All rights Reserved 6

7. TODO: Object Representation
XML Data Representation for samples
 Per DDS-XTypes
 Proposed by RTI+eProsima and Thales
JSON Data Representation for samples
 Proposed by all
 Valuable for JavaScript/AJAX apps
 Not yet formally defined
 Q: Should we keep it here, or move to DS-XTypes?
XML Entity Representation
 Not formally proposed yet, but maybe needed
 Q: When ‘PUT’ting new entity with REST, what is resource
representation?
 Just QoS (as proposed) insufficient: what about e.g. content
filters? Topic names?
 Q: REST-specific, or for SOAP too?
Copyright © 2010 RTI - All rights Reserved 7

8. TODO: Platform-Specific Mappings
General questions:
 Q: How much should PSMs resemble each other? PIM?
 Q: Must have equal expressiveness?
 e.g. Does same notification mechanism make sense for
SOAP vs. RSS?
 Q: Data representation orthogonal?
 e.g. JSON payload in SOAP message?
Copyright © 2010 RTI - All rights Reserved 8

9. TODO: Platform-Specific Mappings
SOAP
 It’s a jungle (of standards) out there.
 Q: SOAP version?
 1.2 is current standard; 1.1 much better supported
 Q: Relationship to current WS-* standards?
 e.g. WS-Eventing, WS-Notification
 e.g. WS-Security
REST
 Q: How resource-oriented vs. procedural?
 With right PIM, many controversies may be stylistic
Copyright © 2010 RTI - All rights Reserved 9

10. TODO: Compliance Points
Q: Which PSMs required?
Q: LwCCM required?
Q: Security required?
Copyright © 2010 RTI - All rights Reserved 10

11. Summary
Initial submissions contain strong ideas
 Focused on different aspects
…but still many holes to fill
Rick’s personal intuition:
 Synthesis won’t be copy-paste from one proposal
or another
 Will differ from all its 3 parents
 Get PIM right + get mapping style right =
PSMs will follow naturally
Copyright © 2010 RTI - All rights Reserved 11

12. Q & A
Copyright © 2010 RTI - All rights Reserved 12