[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: FW: [security-services] Re: Last-call drafts and call for review now available on website
FYI - conclusion on discussion with Karl re: the TC process and our SSTC last call. We're all set. Rob Philpott Senior Consulting Engineer RSA Security Inc. Tel: 781-515-7115 Mobile: 617-510-0893 Fax: 781-515-7020 mailto:rphilpott@rsasecurity.com -----Original Message----- From: Karl F. Best [mailto:karl.best@oasis-open.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 11:30 AM To: Philpott, Robert Subject: Re: [security-services] Re: Last-call drafts and call for review now available on website Rob: Looks good. -Karl Philpott, Robert wrote: > Karl - one of the reasons the SSTC uses a "last call" is to minimize the > probability that we will need to repeat the OASIS 30-day Public Review > period. This gives us a bit more certainty in our scheduling, although > it doesn't eliminate the possibility that it will still be required. > > Anyway we are in sync. The schedule we're working toward includes: > > *** start of SSTC process *** > 1) vote to hold our internal SSTC last call period (requires simple > majority) > 2) SSTC last call period (minimum of 2 weeks) > 3) update specs > > *** start of OASIS process *** > 1) a vote to CD (requires 2/3) > 2) a vote to hold OASIS public review (requires simple majority) > 3) 30-day OASIS Public Review > 4) update specs if required > 5) go back to OASIS step 3 if substantial changes were made > 6) re-approve as CD (requires 2/3) > 7) OASIS vote > > Rob Philpott > Senior Consulting Engineer > RSA Security Inc. > Tel: 781-515-7115 > Mobile: 617-510-0893 > Fax: 781-515-7020 > mailto:rphilpott@rsasecurity.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Karl F. Best [mailto:karl.best@oasis-open.org] > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 10:47 AM > To: Eve L. Maler > Cc: Philpott, Robert; security-services@lists.oasis-open.org; Dee Schur; > Robin Cover; pmishra@netegrity.com; Jeff Hodges; > Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com > Subject: Re: [security-services] Re: Last-call drafts and call for > review now available on website > > Eve: > > All this is okay, except that step #4 is not optional; the TC must > reapprove the CD after the review. > > Please send a sentence or two or three to Dee for her to include in the > weekly news. What you've suggested (with the clarification) is about > right. > > (Sorry if I started a firestorm; I just wanted to make sure that we were > > all clear about what this step was and wasn't.) > > -Karl > > > > Eve L. Maler wrote: > >>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 >> >> > > -- ================================================================= Karl F. Best Vice President, OASIS office +1 978.667.5115 x206 mobile +1 978.761.1648 karl.best@oasis-open.org http://www.oasis-open.org
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]