ebCore Agreement Update CS Special Majority Vote

[Pim van der Eijk <pvde@sonnenglanz.net>]

Dear all,

I would like to follow up on the Agreement Update specification and on the email below.   
The TC agreed to the three steps outlined in the email in the following TC Ballot:

https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ballot.php?id=2934

As requested,  OASIS issued a second Public Review:

https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebcore/201607/msg00000.html

As evidenced by the comment list and the TC mailing list,  no comments have been submitted for this Public Review:

https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebcore-comment/
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebcore/

This means that we can now take the final step.  In our Ballot we resolved to request a Special Majority Vote for the advancement of the draft as a Committee Specification,  in accordance with the OASIS TC Process:

https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#committeeSpec

To avoid having the vote in the midst of the (Northern Hemisphere) summer holiday period,  I've waited some time so that all voting members have the opportunity to participate.  As we are now close to September,  I intend to contact TC Admin and initiate the vote soon.   Please let me know if you have any issues with this timing or any other concerns. 

The TC currently has 8 voting members.  The list is here:

https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/membership.php?wg_abbrev=ebcore

Erlend Klakegg Bergheim	Difi-Agency for Public Management and eGovernment	Voting Member
Torsten Kirschner	Directorate of Labour and Welfare Norway	Voting Member
Theo Kramer	Flame Computing Enterprises cc	Voting Member
Sander Fieten	Individual	Chair
FARRUKH NAJMI	Individual	Voting Member
Albert Kappe	Justitiele Informatiedienst	Voting Member
Pim van der Eijk	Sonnenglanz Consulting	Chair
Ernst Jan van Nigtevecht	Sonnenglanz Consulting	Voting Member

If you are listed as a voting member but don't want to vote,  you can change your member status to Observer.   The approval needs at least 2/3 (two thirds) of the Voting Members to vote "yes" and no more than 1/4 (one fourth) of the Voting Members to vote "no".  

Kind Regards,

Pim van der Eijk

On 29-03-16 09:00, Pim van der Eijk wrote:

Dear all,

I have not received any comments on WD11 in the past three weeks.   WD11 had minor changes compared to WD10,  which was uploaded six weeks ago and incorporated updates relating to feedback from the first Public Review.   So my conclusion is that you as TC have no further comments on this specification at this stage.

If you agree,  my proposal is therefore to re-approve WD11 as CSD.   Since some of the changes were material,  the OASIS process requires us to have a new public review,  for a minimum of 15 days.    A second public review in the OASIS process shall be limited in scope to changes made since the previous review.     After that, if there are no further comments to address, we can wrap up this deliverable, as there are no known requests for changes or enhancements, by approving it as CS.   To keep things simple for you as TC members,  I intend to combine these three actions for you as TC members (CSD approval of WD11, 2nd PR for this CSD,  initiate CS vote if no comments during second PR) in one vote,  for which I will set up an electronic ballot early next month.  Please let me know if you have any questions or comments on this.  

Kind Regards,

Pim

P.S. If there are comments in the second PR, we obviously need to discuss how to handle them after the review period closes. If the comments are such that further non-material changes are needed,  then we cannot upgrade CSD2-PRD2 to CS directly but need to go through (a) new WD(s) and a CSD3 first.  But as there were few comments in the first review and the changes are minor,  I don't expect much feedback ...).
  

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject:	[ebcore] Groups - ebcore-au-v1.0-wd11 uploaded
Date:	Sat, 5 Mar 2016 06:19:24 -0800 (PST)
From:	Pim van der Eijk <pvde@sonnenglanz.net>
To:	ebcore@lists.oasis-open.org

Submitter's message

Hi,

I got input from W3C to resolve the remaining issue with the XML Signature Schema driver, and made some additional (mostly editorial) fixes. Details below. I accepted all tracked changes for wd10 (PR comments) before making the additional changes, so the wd10 and wd11 together reflect the updates to the CSPRD.

One small functional change is a new optional Reason element, to encode the reason an update is requested.

Could you all please send any final comments in the next two/three weeks? I would like to start a new CSD vote around the end of the month.

If the CSD is approved, do you think a new PR would be needed before a CS vote? If we do, we could have one combined TC vote for CSD, new PR, and starting a new vote if no new comments in second PR.

From the change log:
Review comments EJVN processed.
In section 2.1, added a general statement about third parties.
Other editorial clarifications / improvements.
Other:
Editorial fixes.
Reference to and explanation for xmldsig1-schema.xsd added.
In the package, added updated xmldsig1-schema.xsd with embedded comments.
Added OASIS copyright notice to AU and CU schemas.
Updated CPA3 link to latest draft.
In ebMS bindings, Agreement Termination may be a separate Service.
New optional Reason in Update Request.

-- Mr. Pim van der Eijk

Document Name: ebcore-au-v1.0-wd11

---

Description
The ebCore Agreement Update specification defines message exchanges and an
XML schema to support the exchange of messaging service communication
agreement update requests and the associated responses to such requests.
The schema offers extensibility for various types of updates. The main
initial application of the specification is the exchange of X.509
certificates for certificate rollover, for which a separate extension
schema is provided. The specification is based on the concept of messaging
service communication agreements and the creation of new agreements as
independently identified updated copies of existing agreements. The
specification also provides an Agreement Termination feature. The
specification supports ebMS2, ebMS3 and AS4 but can also be used with other
protocols that have a concept of communication agreement. The specification
is independent of storage or interchange formats for configuration
information.
Download Latest Revision
Public Download Link

---

Submitter: Mr. Pim van der Eijk
Group: OASIS ebXML Core (ebCore) TC
Folder: Contributions
Date submitted: 2016-03-05 06:18:38
Revision: 10