[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Proposed Minutes from ID-Cloud TC Call (22 August 2011)
Folks,
Here are the minutes from the ID-Cloud TC call this week.
Apologies if I missed any discussion points or threads.
/thomas/
________________________
Oasis ID-Cloud TC Meeting Minutes (22 August 2011)
-------------------------------------------------
[Notation: Q = question; A = answer; C = comment]
(1) Roll Call and Agenda Review:
- Quorum was achieved.
- Thomas Hardjono minute taker.
(2) Approval of TC Meeting Minutes from 8 August 2011:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/id-cloud/201108/msg00033.html
- Motion to accept minutes: Roger Bass.
Second: Dominique Nguyen.
No objections. Motion passes. Minutes approved.
(3) Terms & Definitions work:
- Matt: reminder that the informal telecon is on Mondays,
following the TC telecon
- Anil: any discussions or questions about Use-Cases?
(none)
(4) Gap Analysis discussion:
- Roger:
o Reminder that GAP analysis telecons is on
Thursdays 2PM-EST (11AM-PST).
o Roger will send out new notifications.
o Group has had discussions about the process to
identify the standards that apply to the use-cases.
- Matt:
o We need to be mindful of our customer (namely OASIS).
o We need to be mindful about which groups (in OASIS) to
whom we direct our recommendations.
- Roger:
o We should not skew our GAP analysis to fit existing
groups in OASIS.
o If other standards (outside OASIS) exists, then it
is ok to identify them.
- Matt:
o We should start at OASIS and work outwards
- Anil:
o We need to look at all standards & bodies (be inclusive).
o We look at OASIS first and then other/external
standards bodies.
- Roger:
o We need to factor-in market traction (of standards)
when we do our work.
o For example, if there are two standards (an OASIS
and an external), but the external standards has
more market traction, then we should take that factor
into consideration.
- Matt:
o Our first customer is OASIS.
- Roger:
o Confused about what it means to have "OASIS as customer".
- Anil:
o We have completed the Use-Cases doc.
o Now, for each Use-case we need to look at the
existing standards:
+ Identify the gaps.
+ Then give feedback to the relevant standards body.
+ If they are not interest, then we can do the
standards work ourselves.
- Roger:
o Wants to understand relationship between doing gap
analysis and profiles.
o Perhaps our TC output should not only be the gap analyses,
but also profiles.
o Is this correct, and what are the implications?
- Darren:
o What is the status of SCIM protocol and relationship to us?
- Matt:
o We should not endorse other groups.
o We should take actions that benefit OASIS.
- Roger:
o Lets use SCIM just as an example for our current discussion.
o SCIM is currently being adapted for mobile provisioning.
o What should be our motivation for adopting SCIM?
- Anil:
o We will need to engage IP experts in OASIS.
- David:
o We are producing a report (gap analysis).
o We need to distinguish between standards-body and
industry activity.
o Its ok for us to say that there are no formal standards
today but only an industry activity.
- Darren:
o Darren actively follows developments in SCIM and SPML.
o SCIM is planned for submission into the IETF.
- Matt:
o It is ok for us to reference other work, but
we should not go into details.
o That is, we should not need to read a specification and
profile it.
o Thus, gap-analyses and profiling are separate activities.
- Roger:
o Question to Matt: is Intellectual Property (IP) a
deciding factor for Matt (in choosing which standards
specs and standards-bodies) ?
- Matt:
o OASIS has a prescribed steps for its members to engage
other external standards-bodies.
o Matt is concerned that we are getting ahead of ourselves.
o We should just do gap analysis (not start writing profiles).
- Roger:
o So the dividing line is profiles.
- Matt:
o Yes, we should identity gaps but not analyze other specs.
- Roger:
o The problem is that you can only understand
a spec (like SCIM) by reading the spec in detail.
o Also, some folks may not be sufficiently familiar with
a given use-case but is very familiar with a given
specification/standard (and vice versa).
o So the challenge is: what is the correct alignment and
process between a use-case being analyzed and the
recommended standard(s).
- Anil:
o Lets just start with OASIS approved standards first.
+ Roger: OK
+ Anil: Need not include Work-in-Progress or drafts.
- David:
o David disagrees (about not including works-in-progress).
o We need to capture the state of the industry.
o Which means including newly formed working groups.
- Matt:
o Matt is ok with this, but we need to look at
groups/works which have publicly available
information (eg. websites) and not private/closed efforts.
- David:
o David agrees with Matt.
o One thing is to recognize a given work effort, but
how to use it (to fill a gap) is out-of-scope for us.
+ Matt agrees with David.
- David:
o For now we should include as much stuff (ie. standards
specs) as possible and remove/reduce later on.
o That is, we should not limit ourselves now.
- Matt:
o OK, but we should not get stuck with someone else's specs.
o The specs we look at should already be published, should
have no IP restrictions and be in the public domain.
- Roger:
o This is clear enough. We should just do gap analysis.
- Dominique(?): what is the time frame to complete gap
analyses? Is it November?
- Anil:
o We need to put out a draft version, and continue producing
revisions.
o Its difficult to set an end-date. Basically we have
the Sept-Oct-Nov time frame to complete the gap analysis.
- Roger:
o Agrees that we may reference published
standards (non-SDO standards)
o We need to find a suitable level of detail to describe,
but defer detailed dive to a later date.
- Anil: End of gap analysis discussion.
o Roger: will send-out reminder for the Thursday meetings.
- Roger:
o Status of SCIM in the future?
o Anil: we will not make a decision until SCIM is version 1.0.
- Roger:
o Will OASIS consider bringing-in SCIM?
o Anil: There is a parallel discussion on-going in
OASIS (unrelated to this TC).
5) Meeting adjourned.
--------------------------------------------------------------
SoapHub Chat Transcript:
AnilSaldhana(RedHat)
Anthony Nadalin
David Turner (MSFT)
Dominique Nguyen11
Hadass Harel (eBay)
lippa02
Matt Rutkowski (IBM)
Roger Bass (Traxian)
Thomas Hardjono (MIT)
Anonymous morphed into Darran Rolls, SailPoint
AnilSaldhana(RedHat): dialing
AnilSaldhana(RedHat): http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/id-cloud/201108/msg00033.html
AnilSaldhana(RedHat): Link to Meeting Minutes of Aug 8, 2011
AnilSaldhana(RedHat): Roger: moves, Dominique: seconds
AnilSaldhana(RedHat): approved
AnilSaldhana(RedHat): good discussion related to IP associated with standards - open vs proprietary standards
Dominique Nguyen11: I hope we are going to finalize our approach at the end of the discussion to set clear direction
David Turner (MSFT): actually, to be clear, I actually said, "let's burn that bridge when we come to it?
--------------------------------------------------------------
__________________________________________
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]