Re: [security-services] Re: Last-call drafts and call for review nowavailable on website

["Eve L. Maler" <Eve.Maler@Sun.COM>]

I'm keeping the cc list here so people can see the conclusion, but I 
suggested that any finer points should be discussed in private mail.

Karl, since we're doing this at the TC stage and on the TC's 
recognizance only, it's prior to the steps you list below.  It's "step 
0", if you like.  It goes like this:

0. Last-call working draft review
1. Approve as CD
2. Public review
3 and 4. Revise and reapprove as CD (if necessary)
5. Vote to submit for OASIS Standard balloting

Note that this step 0 is a practice of long standing in the SSTC (it 
predates the current TC process and the mandated 30-day CD review on the 
way to balloting, for example :-).  Now that I understand the text I was 
seeing in the TC process doc, I think it's clear that we need not 
lengthen our planned schedule.  But if you're willing to publicize this 
review period, then perhaps we modify the second sentence of my 
suggested blurb to say something like "...and is soliciting review 
comments and implementor feedback prior to preparing Committee Drafts 
(after which time the TC will conduct an additional 30-day CD review)."

	Eve

Karl F. Best wrote:

> Rob:
> 
> You're correct in that the Public Review is optional before the TC 
> finally approves the spec as a Committee Draft *if* that CD is not going 
> to be submitted for consideration as an OASIS Standard. If the CD is 
> going to be submitted then there must be a public review. But as what is 
> sent out for public review must be approved first as a CD, maybe where 
> we're at is the first CD approval.
> 
> We do it like this: 1) approve as CD, 2) public review, 3) revise, 4) 
> reapprove as CD, 5) vote to submit to OASIS.
> 
> Steps 1-3 can be repeated as often as desired.
> 
> My concern is that the TC has invented a new, extra-procedural step 
> named "last call". This is very confusing, both to people who are 
> acquainted with the OASIS process and won't know where this fits, as 
> well as to people who will confuse this with the W3C process.
> 
> That said, I'm happy for us to announce this "review" (or whatever) to 
> our members; we should just be clear about where this fits in the 
> process to avoid confusion.
> 
> -Karl

-- 
Eve Maler                                        +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems                            cell +1 781 354 9441
Web Products, Technologies, and Standards    eve.maler @ sun.com