|
Many
thanks Orit
Plus I
would add that we will be dealing with other SDO such as TM Forum, ITU-T etc..
and working closely with them to get requirements from their documents.
These SDO operate under RAND and as such this make the flow of information
between the OASIS SOA TC and the other SDO more fluid.
Cheers
Abbie
I am aware of an explicit discussion that did take place at the convener call
and I am happy to summarize on this list why we think that the RAND mode of
operation for this particular TC (SOA-TEL) is the most appropriate way to
go:
1. This TC is NOT going to produce any technical
specifications.
2. This TC is about gathering requirements backed up by use
cases and scenarios and their applicability to existing technologies.
3. This
TC is about bringing as many as possible telecoms and vendors working in the
Telecom area who feel most comfortable with RAND to contribute to the
discussion.
These are the reasons why, in our view, RAND will make
SOA-TEL TC work more open, inclusive, and efficient.
Hope this helps.
Best Regards,
Ms. Orit Levin | Senior Standards Program Manager
| Entertainment & Devices Division | Microsoft Corporation
oritl@microsoft.com | V: +1 425 722 2225 | F: +1 425 936
7329
________________________________________
From: Dennis E. Hamilton
[dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 10:09 AM
To:
oasis-charter-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [oasis-charter-discuss]
Nonresponsiveness to Charter IPR Comments
There is a very odd boilerplate
response in how some Charter comments are
addressed. I'm sure it does
not go without notice, but I'm going to call it
out anyhow.
When
someone says "I do not understand why this needs to be done under RAND
mode,"
to say "RAND is a valid OASIS IPR mode" is completely unresponsive.
It should
be assumed that the questioner already knows that. The question
being asked
is "Why is RAND mode adopted as opposed to one of the
more-lenient and
predictable OASIS IPR modes?"
To beg the question in this way is simply
confirming the fears of those who
ask concerning unspoken agendas and
intentions to (reserve the right to)
extract royalties.
This response
can continue to be used, but at some point forthrightness and
transparency
would seem to be a preferable approach to creating a charter
where any sort
of broad participation/adoption and support for adoption as
an eventual OASIS
Standard is the objective. If the convener and proposers
are simply hedging
their bets, they should maybe grow up and say it like it
is, even biting the
bullet and make a solid declaration -- there is IP that
will be asserted or
there is and it will be RF on RAND or even RF on Limited
Terms. If the
potential IP is speculative, commit about that up front so
others understand
what they are walking into and freely contributing into if
they choose to do
that.
- Dennis
Dennis E.
Hamilton
------------------
NuovoDoc: Design for Document System
Interoperability
mailto:Dennis.Hamilton@acm.org |
gsm:+1-206.779.9430
http://NuovoDoc.com http://ODMA.info/dev/
http://nfoWorks.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To
unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates
this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
|