Re: FW: X.CAP and OASIS preferences

[James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>]

   Lysa, I am concerned that we may not be able to give official 
consent to this *unreviewed* proposal this fast.  Management of the 
submission is in the consortium management's hands, not just the TC, 
in order to assure that we follow our rules, and maintain OASIS' 
interests in its collaborations with other SDOs.
   Whatever the proposal's merit, there's a general need to maintain 
  parallel uniformity across organizations.  OASIS submissions to 
ISO and ITU invariably have included the following conditions, so 
that cross-compatibility is not broken:
   1.  Adopted OASIS Standards are submitted for approval "as is", 
that is, to be voted up or down without change.
   2.  Comments and proposals for change from the approving 
organization and most welcome, but must be brought back to the 
originating OASIS for discussion.
   3.  Participating OASIS TCs commit to review, consider and 
resolve the proposals for change.
   4.  Any mutually agreed changes must be re-approved as errata or 
OASIS Standards (generally) before resubmission to the approving 
organization.
   5.  Generally there is an arranged method for resolving any 
proposed variances.

   While the new proposed schema from ITU may be informally 
acceptable to the TC, at first glance, step 4 above normally would 
require that the TC official approve additions or changes either as 
official errata (requiring 15 day public review, under section 3.5 
of the TC Process), a Committee Specification (requiring 60 day 
public review etc) or an OASIS Standard.  That would assure, among 
other things, that the TC and its broader user constituencies had 
some minimal opportunity to *review* the proposed AS1 representation.

   If we do otherwise, and welcome sudden changes to our submissions 
outside of our arranged process, it both bends our own rules, and 
encourages our collaborating organizations to fork the standards we 
submit.
   Adopting a "second alternative" side-by-side standard from ITU, 
as they've most recently suggested, probably is a good faith attempt 
to handle the same material in a more harmless manner. However, it 
still fundamentally acts like a forking of the work.  I can imagine 
many other "supplements" proposed at the last minute that might 
detract significantly from the OASIS work ... and as I understand 
that TC has not really even reviewed this one.  Also, significantly, 
I do not know if the AS1 submission is *available* to OASIS to be 
contributed to *us* on the TC's applicable terms.  That would be an 
essential element to any future coordination.
   Abbie, do you really think it would be safe to do otherwise?  If 
there is a second, shadow standard, described as related to CAP by 
ITU, but not by OASIS (whatever its merit), would this not confuse 
users?

   Like Art, who wrote to the TC list several days ago about this, I 
am pleased that the ITU community wants to donate AS1 "code" to the 
project.  We encourage the TC to let ITU know that it welcomes this 
development.  But this proposal should be handled within the context 
of he review and approval steps we use to ensure transparency and 
quality assurance.
   It's my current feeling that we should communicate with SG17, and 
our representatives there, and ask that they not enact an unreviewed 
document that is stated to be related to our submission until our TC 
has a chance properly to process it.  However, I understand that we 
want to cooperative as best as possible with ITU and its submitters, 
and would appreciate your feedback on these views.

   Kind regards  JBC

~ James Bryce Clark
~ Director of Standards Development, OASIS
~ jamie.clark@oasis-open.org