[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [kmip] Groups - Proposal for modification to Conformance Section (Conformance_Clause_Proposal_V3.doc) uploaded
We could certainly consider updating the charter to be explicit
about a) profiles, and b) ongoing spec maintenance by following the procedures
described in the OASIS TC Process (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php)
re: rechartering. I refer you to the current SSTC charter as an example (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/security/charter.php).
That TC has gone through a couple of charter revisions in its long history (it started
in Nov 2000) as it moved from SAML 1.0 to 1.1 to 2.0. That current charter uses wording in the purpose, scope and
deliverables to account for creation of new profiles of use and spec
maintenance. The last update was back in Nov 2003 and that revision has
served the ongoing work since then. While I’m not suggesting that the KMIP TC has to continue
in existence for the next 10 years or more, there is nothing that precludes
that if evolution of the spec and creation of new profiles truly serves the
interests of the industry. Rob Philpott RSA, the Security Division of EMC From: Mary McRae
[mailto:mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org] Hi Bruce, Yes, that's for the TC to decide. I'm not aware
of an existing TC that has ever taken that position (that creation of a profile
is out of scope) but it's up to the participants. As far as time commitments go,
again, there is no 'required' membership; members are free to join/leave as
appropriate. Of course those employers that are paying employees to sit on
committees might have a different opinion ;) Regards, Mary On Jul 16, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Bruce Rich wrote:
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]