[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: FW: OASIS schedule update
Tim, First, I do not want to wait for V 2.0 for approval as an OASIS standard. My idea is to finish V 1.1 in a timely manner and get that approved as an OASIS standard while we work on V 2.0. We need to settle on a target date for completion of V 1.1 as soon as possible and no later than the Oct. 1-3 meeting. I also believe that it will be essential to coordinate the schedule for completion of V 1.1 with the MSG team so that both CPPA 1.1 and MSG 1.1 are up for approval at the same time. The reason is all the interlock points between the two standards. An approved V 1.1 should definitely have a positive marketing effect. Public-review comments on V 1.1 will be extremely valuable. On the other hand, it is not obvious that collecting public-review comments on V 1.0 at this late date serves a significant purpose, given the number of things we already know we need to fix. Sorting those comments to figure out what is new and what we already know about will certainly be a distraction. (I am, of course, assuming that there will be a significant number of comments; given the lack of activity on ebxml-cppa-comment, that is by no means certain.) In any case, if we do start a public-review period on V 1.0, the commenters will expect responses and that we do something with the comment whether or not they affect the immediate approval process. Karl Best will have to confirm this but my recollection is that the ebXML IPR policy was closely modelled on the OASIS policy if it isn't identical. If so, moving the spec to OASIS should have little or no IPR impact on implementers. Regards, Marty ************************************************************************************* Martin W. Sachs IBM T. J. Watson Research Center P. O. B. 704 Yorktown Hts, NY 10598 914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287 Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com ************************************************************************************* "Collier, Timothy R" <timothy.r.collier@intel.com> on 08/24/2001 04:35:54 PM To: ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org cc: Subject: FW: OASIS schedule update Dale, Marty, All, I am happy to go with the flow, but from what I read of Lisa's mail, it seemed to indicate that the comments could not force changes to the reviewed spec. 3. The timeline of number 2 gives us a nice cushion to get a lot public comments before it goes out for membership review. According to Karl, the specification that is sent out for review is the specification that is balloted with no changes allowed in between. So, I don't see how that could have a resource impact. Now I do wonderif by having the spec as an OASIS standard, it makes a difference to implementers. Like are the IP rules for use of the ebXML standard the same as the rules of use for an OASIS standard? If by moving it to an approved OASIS standard it buys the users something, then I would think that would be useful. Also, I am a little concerned that if we wait for v2.0, the delay in having a standard could be a problem for the end users. Thinking about the timeline, we are what 16 months from the end of the CPP/A v2.0 TC? So that would roughly put it in January of 2003, it then goes to OASIS membership by Feb 2003, they have 30 days to comment, then the balloting is April 2003. Are the end users willing to wait? Are we opening up a window for other standards bodies to release things that compete in the interim? Would having a v1.1 provide at least a marketing opportunity to try to maintain momentum? Tim -----Original Message----- From: Lisa Carnahan [mailto:lisa.carnahan@nist.gov] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 1:47 PM To: regrep@lists.oasis-open.org Cc: karl.best@oasis-open.org Subject: OASIS schedule update Hello All, I spoke with Karl Best this morning regarding the schedule for submitting specs for an OASIS Membership vote. What I said yesterday was wrong regarding making a submission at the end of September. The Process is as follows: (excerpted from http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.shtml . See the link for the complete text) Section 2. Standards Process ...Upon resolution of the TC to move the specification forward, its chair shall submit the following items to OASIS: (a) a formal specification that is a valid member of its type; (b) appropriate documentation for the specification; (c) a clear English-language summary of the specification; (d) certification by at least three OASIS member organizations that they are successfully using the specification; (e) an account of or pointer to votes and comments received in any earlier attempts to standardize substantially the same specification, together with the originating TC's response to each comment; f) a pointer to the publicly visible comments archive for the originating TC; and (g) a statement from the chair of the TC certifying that all members of the TC have been provided with a copy of the OASIS IPR policy. Thirty days shall be allowed for administrative processing of a proposed standard. The proposal shall be submitted to the OASIS membership for review at the beginning of the first calendar quarter following the 30 days allocated for administrative review. At the beginning of the next calendar quarter, the proposal shall be submitted to the voting members of OASIS, who shall have thirty days to return a ballot approving or disapproving the proposal. ..... What does this mean to us? 1. Since we won't have something ready to submit to Karl by September1 (thirty days before October 1), we won't have a spec ready for membership review October 1. 2. Our next OASIS deadline is December 1. If we submit a spec to Karl by December 1, then he will send it out for review January 1. The ballot for OASIS Membership vote will then take place April 1. 3. The timeline of number 2 gives us a nice cushion to get a lot public comments before it goes out for membership review. According to Karl, the specification that is sent out for review is the specification that is balloted with no changes allowed in between. (Karl: please correct me if I'm wrong) --lisa
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC