Re: Subcommittee Reorganization

Sorry for the slip of the pen, although the context should give a clue…

Since this SC (Sub Committee) is not about writing specs

It appears that the other than language and architecture are coming through the AP SC.

If this is incorrect, then it reinforces my point that the desired role of each *SC* could be clearer, and creating that clarity is the first step towrd making the meetings more productive.

From: duncan sfractal.com <duncan@sfractal.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 3:04 PM
To: Considine, Toby <Toby.Considine@unc.edu>; OASIS OpenC2 List <openc2@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Subcommittee Reorganization

Wrt “(IC-SC)… Since this TC is not about writing specs” – I strongly disagree. The IC-SC is responsible for writing specs. It wrote the HTTPS Spec which the TC passed and it is currently working on draft specs for pub/sub, opendxl, mqtt, HTTP transport specs as well as others I’m probably forgetting.

Duncan Sparrell

sFractal Consulting LLC

iPhone, iTypo, iApologize

I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at http://vsre.info/

From: TC OpenC2 <openc2@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Toby Considine <Toby.Considine@unc.edu>
Date: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 10:32 AM
To: TC OpenC2 <openc2@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [openc2] Subcommittee Reorganization

As we come toward the annual meeting, we need some clarity of purpose:

What is the purpose of the Language Sub, and who will advance that purpose as an officer of that SC. Who might take the pen as an editor, and can we get that process moving. (I have answers to these questions, but I think it is as the heart of the conversation. What is the schedule (weekly, monthly, quarterly) that advances these goals.
What is the purpose of the Implementations Subcommittee, and who will advance that purpose. Since this TC is not about writing specs, but perhaps on prioritizing recruiting efforts, an editor is not such an issue there. Who will make more implementations come? Is this the proper “owner” of the Plugfests?
Do these purposes actually help each other when discussed in the same meeting.

I can go whichever way the TC wants, but I think these are the issues to be considered.

As indicated elsewhere, it is not unusual to have 3-5 active people on a TC or subcommittee. There are 5 total in COEL. OBIX had about 30 members, but those actually contributing in meetings tended to be 4. WS-Calendar had 6 maybe active members, with occasional side meetings with the IETF crowd. EMIX had 10-13 active members, but many more commenters. Energy Interoperation usually had 8-9 active participants and maybe 45 watchers.. Those last two were part of an active project authorized by actual legislation (EISA 2007) so it ended up with some feeders. NEASB had its side committees feeding formal requirements in. The ISO RTO Architectural Council was represented by a single member but it was carried away and discussed elsewhere, and they would vote as a block. We had one actual Investor-Owned Utility participating, but I know he had weekly meetings with many others. The 3000+ organizations in the Rural Electrical Coop industry were represented by a single member from their trade association. Multiple national labs participated.

The observation that too few are participating seems off, to me. OpenC2 seems active and with regular wide participation.

What OpenC2 is, is a little scattered in its purpose right now. Is it solely a preference to use a particular format for JSON over HTTPS, so its work is done? Is it a universal language for all things Cyber-Physical? Does it have a set of over-arching priorities beyond just finishing the next firewall spec? One could attend many meetings and not be clear.

Resolve this, and the problem is not enough work being generated solves itself.

tc

openc2 message