FW: FW: OASIS schedule update

["Collier, Timothy R" <timothy.r.collier@intel.com>]

"cc" the list

-----Original Message-----
From: Collier, Timothy R 
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 3:36 PM
To: 'Martin W Sachs'
Subject: RE: FW: OASIS schedule update


Then, waiting for v1.1 to have it approved as an OASIS standard instead of
v1.0 makes sense to me.

	My $.02

	Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 3:00 PM
To: Collier, Timothy R
Cc: ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
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