[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes for Telecon, Tuesday 8 April 2003
Minutes for WSSTC Telecon, Tuesday 8 April 2003
Dial in info: 1-913-905-1400 Passcode: 214098
Minutes taken by Steve Anderson
======================================================================
Summary
======================================================================
Votes:
- Minutes from 25 March 2003 meeting accepted (unanimous)
- TC will hold a first sanctioned interop event and F2F in mid June
(passed with 14 for, 10 against, 13 abstaining)
New (General) Action Items:
- Paul to post interop/F2F voting suggestions
Issues List Action Items & Status Updates:
- none
======================================================================
Raw Notes
======================================================================
>
> Agenda:
>
> 1. Roll call
>
- Attendance attached to bottom of these minutes
- Quorum achieved
>
> 2. Review minutes from previous meeting (3/25/2003)
> < http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200303/msg00062.html >
>
- [VOTE] unanimous consent, accepted
>
> 3. Web page migration update (quick status update)
>
- Kelvin: is anyone having problems?
- Martijn: was getting Javascript errors, is there an address to send
questions/problems to?
- Kelvin: write to webmaster@oasis-open.org
>
> 4. Discuss any remaining interop related issues
>
- Chris: we've closed all the issues
- just waiting for Tony to send updated core spec based on last call
- Kelvin: that would be draft -12
- Tony: it's done, but hasn't been able to post it
- should have it posted by this evening
- Ron: has question on scenarios, about encryption
- we could represent the key use for encryption in a couple
different ways
- there can be some variability in how we represent the encrypted
data, via ref list in header, or an encrypted key with refs
- Hal: scenarios have
- Hal: also has question on scenarios
- thinks the encrypted key should be first
- Chris: correct, will fix right away
- Hal: choice of using 'content' rather than 'element'
- Chris: correct, should be 'element', will fix
- Hal: was trying to understand scenario 3, needs some editing to make
understandable
- Chris: how about we work together on making that acceptable
- Hal: also had question about intentions with 'TBD's in the doc
- Chris: just wanted to do as little manual SOAP as necessary
- will get responses added in
- Chris: will attempt to get new rev out today/tomorrow
- Martijn: question about scenario 2
- Chris: we will have pre-assigned certificates we'll give out to
everyone
- Martijn: another point, will usernames/passwords be known before?
- will passwords be reverse of username?
- Chris: what to people want to do?
- Ron: why bother reversing them?
- Chris: just didn't want to reuse username directly, to demonstrate
that we are processing passwords
- Jerry: asking for preloaded set of uids/pwds
- Chris: will propose a set
-
>
> 5. Discussion of next F2F place and time
>
- Kelvin: not sure what folks can see of the ballot results, may just
be the numbers
- had a fair spread of responses
- net was around May/June
- Chris: interop testing is more of a company activity, but the vote
was on an individual basis
- Hal: can you capture that with data available to the chairs?
- [checking results]
- Chris: for those that voted for a date, were you voting for a date
you'd have software?
- seems to be 'yes'
- Ron: most were picking a date we'd have an implementation by
- Kelvin: there may well be more than one of these events, and the goal
isn't to embarrass those that don't participate
- Paul: if that's the case, there are some with implementations now, so
can we not have an earlier event?
- Kelvin: that's what we were trying to arrive at
- Hal: even if we decide on an earliest possibility, logistics would
dictate it being no earlier than May
- Chris: here's the by-company tally
- 6 for May, 6 for June, 3-4 for July
- proposes doing it late May, then again late June or July
- Ron: why not just target June?
- Chris: there are things we can learn from the earlier event that will
benefit the later event
- Ron: you've got 9-10 companies that won't be ready until June
- Paul: having fewer is actually easier
- Tony: should everyone wait until you are ready?
- Ron: critical mass is around June, and now we've changed the
discussion to deal with 2 events rather than 1
- Paul: the intent is to improve the spec, and there are 6 companies
that are willing to meet in May to do that
- Ron: since discussion has changed, that would have affected the ballot
responses
- Chris: interprets poll to show that there is a group ready and willing
to meet in May, and another group in June
- can't see how meeting with those that are ready in May could do
anything but help
- Ron: will those traveling to the May event turn around and travel to
another event in June?
- Kelvin: let's slow down, consider what is best for the spec
- Ed: providing insight on Novell's vote of July
- wanted to allow for as much time as possible
- would like to see one sooner if sufficient number of participants
are ready
- Novell would participate in sooner event if possible
- Kelvin: when we talked in Baltimore about this first, several folks
talked about how a big bang first event would make things difficult
- we should have an expectation of doing this at least twice
- Don: there's an elephant in the room we are ignoring, the marketing
aspects, which the ealier/smaller group will benefit from
- Kelvin: agrees, and we have discussed not making a big press issue
of these efforts, and even avoided tagging the doc set with any
'interop' terms
- Rob: we all agreed in Baltimore NOT to do marketing around this
- Kelvin: agrees, sees it as a gentlepersons' agreement to treat it
honorably
- Jerry: we don't always have control over marketing arms
- Hal: minutes and activities are open in OASIS, so it's not hard for
the public to find this out
- Ed: suggests pulling July desires back into June, where everyone
can participate, and any earlier private testing results can be
provided on the list
- Kelvin: recalls W3C/OASIS meeting in Boston, where timely progress
was clearly called for
- concerned that delaying the event will allow things to drag out and
miss that directive
- Ed: thinks progress shouldn't be held up because of 1 company
- Ron: would like to focus on one event
- Ron: [MOTION] To hold event, based on scenarios XXX, in mid June
- Ed: seconds, reiterates usefulness of April/May private testing
results
- Tony: what would be difference in that vs. having smaller interop
event in April/May
- Chris: everyone's been discouraging making a big deal out of the
interop effort, but this distinction seems to make the June event
more of a big deal
- Ed: bilateral, over-the-internet testing is what he is envisioning
- if you have travel budget to spend, great, but don't make it a TC
event
- Chris: don't see the need to discourage those that want to meet F2F,
which is how this kind of testing works best
- has a set of people sitting in a holding pattern, who could be
providing useful results
- Tony: we can't make it in June, May is it
- [returning to motion]
- Chris: is this to just have one in June, or to ONLY have one in June?
- Ed: the only TC-sanctioned event is June, and all other private,
informal testing results are welcomed
- [MOTION restated] TC will hold a first interop event and F2F in mid
June
- Don: friendly amendment, to add 'sanctioned'
- [MOTION restated] TC will hold a first sanctioned interop event and
F2F in mid June
- Chris: wants to comment that it is not to our mutual advantage to
have unsanctioned testing
- [ ... more discussion ... ]
- call to question
- [VOTE] 14 yes, 10 no, 13 abstain, therefore motion passes
- quorum re-verified
- strawpoll of who can participate in June, for interop and F2F?
- Steve: suggests on online ballot on dates, etc
- will be looking for location either central or western US
- Kelvin: thinking we'll do interop first, maybe 2 days, then do F2F,
also maybe 2 days
- Chris: suggesting doing interop in morning and F2F in afternoon, for
2-3 days
- concerned with total length of time for those that participate in both
- Paul: if it's on West coast, begin interop on Monday pm, so folks can
travel Mon morning, continuing Tues am, then hold F2F Tues pm through
Thurs am
- Kelvin: concerned with setup time for people coming off the plane
Mon mid-day
- Hal: nothing preventing people from working Mon evening
- Paul: how much post-interop spec work is there to do?
- Kelvin: thinks there are around 10 issues
- Paul: not sure how to allot time for interop & post-interop spec
discussion
- Martijn: thinks it's useful to block testing time separate from F2F
- advocates 1.5 days testing & 1-1.5 days of F2F work
- Ron: what about conducting testing & F2F discussion concurrently?
- Kelvin: probably have a mixture of individuals that would want to be
involved with both
- Paul: proposes noon Monday to noon Thursday format
- [discussion of online voting]
- [ACTION] Paul to post interop/F2F voting suggestions
- Jerry: wants to clarify that post-interop discussion can carry on
prior to interop event
- Kelvin: agrees
>
> 6. Update from the editors
>
- Kelvin: saw one update from PhilG
- any other editorial updates?
- seems to be none
- PhilHB: has not seen comments on his docs
- Tim: if this is for the X509 profile, he has posted comments
- PhilHB: found them, will review
- Ron: there were a significant number of comments from Frederick, which
caused a re-write
- will produce another rev in the next week or so
- Kelvin: generally need editors to verify our links to other docs
>
> 7. Discuss post interop spec issues
>
- none
>
> 8. Other business
>
- Martijn: question about applying XML Signature to documents using
SOAP with attachments
- there was a document from Frederick, but is there anything more up to
date?
- Chris: there are other groups working in this space, and we should
wait to see what progress they make
- Ron: we do discuss how to encrypt an attachment, does that use some
unique facility of XML Encryption?
- Chris: it uses cypher reference
- Ron: how might this relate to signing?
- [discussion]
>
> 9. Adjourn
>
- Adjourned
- will meet again in 2 weeks
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Attendance of Voting Members:
Gene Thurston AmberPoint
Frank Seibenlist Argonne National Lab
Merlin Hughes Baltimore Technologies
Irving Reid Baltimore Technologies
Peter Dapkus BEA
Hal Lockhart BEA
Guillermo Lao ContentGuard
TJ Pannu ContentGuard
Shawn Sharp Cyclone Commerce
Ganesh Vaideeswaran Documentum
Tim Moses Entrust
Toshihiro Nishimura Fujitsu
Yutaka Kudo Hitachi
Maryann Hondo IBM
Kelvin Lawrence IBM
Anthony Nadalin IBM
Nataraj Nagaratnam IBM
Don Flinn Individual
Phil Griffin Individual
Venkat Danda IONA Technology
Paul Cotton Microsoft
Chris Kaler Microsoft
Chris Kurt Microsoft
Prateek Mishra Netegrity
Frederick Hirsch Nokia
Senthil Sengodan Nokia
Ed Reed Novell
Charles Knouse Oblix
Steve Anderson OpenNetwork
Jerry Schwarz Oracle
Eric Gravengaard Reactivity
Rob Philpott RSA Security
Peter Rostin RSA Security
Martijn de Boer SAP
Pete Wenzel SeeBeyond
Yassir Elley Sun Microsystems
Ronald Monzillo Sun Microsystems
Sirish Vepa Sybase
Jan Alexander Systinet
Don Adams TIBCO
John Weiland US Navy
Phillip Hallam-Baker VeriSign
Attendance of Observers or Prospective Members:
John Hughes Entegrity
Membership Status Changes:
Michael Nguyen The IDA of Singapore - Granted voting status after call
John Hughes Entegrity - Granted voting status after call
Padraig Moloney NASA - Requested membership 3/31/2003
--
Steve
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]