[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Draft minutes from last meeting (8 Dec 09)
Thanks to Elysa for suggesting that I take a look at the draft minutes from your meeting which I recently attended. I have the following comments for your consideration. In section 3a (about ITU x.1303 and backwards compatibility): (i) I'd consider a reqording of these sentences to emphasis the continuing role of the TC: [from] It is not incumbent on the TC to try to work through coordination with other organizations. It is OASIS Staff that will send the Standard to ITU-T, not the TC. He did recommend that we give this some thought and be prepared to provide a detailed document to qualify the choices and considerations that were made. [to] OASIS staff makes the fornmal submissions to ITU, and directly handles liaison matters with help from the committee's appointed liaison member(s). However, the TC retains decision-making power over all technical aspects of the work, including the content of future versions. He suggested that we give some thought to the possible critiques we may encounter, including at ITU, and be prepared to provide a detailed document to qualify the choices and considerations that were made. and (ii) I think there's a word missing in this sentence: Jacob responded as the primary editor of CAP 1.2. He admitted not have extensive knowledge of ASN.1 backward compatibility. In section 3b (about ITU H.323) (iii) I'd like to correct the uwe of a word here: [from] Jamie stated that the H.323 study group working this does not have a security focus and picked it up as applied to a different use case. [to] Jamie stated that the H.323 study group working this comes from a different group than the "security" study group, and has applied our specification to a different use case. (iv) Finally, I'm not sure the point made in this last paragraph was mind - and really, it's a matter for the TC to judge, not staff. So I have suggested a rewording to make it an open questuion. [from] He further stated that while CAP has been around a while now, it has certainly had much use and update but is still a bit underspecified. It shows up with one-off individual taxonomies of authorization and permission. Who gets to see it, seems to be re-invented with who has a right to see and do what. [to] It was noted that while CAP has been around a while now, and certainly has much use, it might be a bit underspecified. It shows up with one-off individual taxonomies of authorization and permission. The committee may want to think about issues of data access, and the contexts in which CAP is used: who gets to see the data, and do what to it, seems to vary greatly among uses and implementation. . Thanks for your consideration, and all of your work on these important open standards projects. Warm regards and happy holidays Jamie ~ James Bryce Clark ~ General Counsel, OASIS ~ http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#clark
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]