[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [provision] Minutes of the October 25 meeting of the OASIS PSTC.
Minutes of the October 25th meeting of the OASIS PSTC. Meeting Date: October 25th, 2010 Meeting Time: 2PM Eastern Location: Tel=866.434.5269 Meeting Number=9406791 Duration: Approximately 50 minutes Chairs: Richard Sand, Gary Cole Recording Secretary: Dan Perry Attendees: Gary Cole (Oracle) Karsten Huneycutt (UNC-Chapel Hill) Anil John (JHU-APL) Hal Lockhart (Oracle) Prateek Mishra (Oracle) Dan Perry (Skyworth TTG) Richard Sand (Skyworth TTG) Kent Spaulding (Oracle) Chi Wu (JHU-APL) Tom Zeller (Internet2) Yvonne Wilson (Oracle) Agenda: 1) Roll Call and Agenda Review 2) Approval of Oct 11th Meeting Minutes 3) Offer by Mark Diodati from Burton to speak to the committee 4) PSTC charter. Discuss changes to last draft, schedule OASIS vote 5) Use-cases - discuss any updates 6) AOB 1) Roll Call and Agenda Review: - Gary took roll. - Quorum was achieved. - Voting status changes: Chi Wu & Tom Zeller have both gain voting status. Dale Olds has lost voting status. 2) Approval of Oct 11th Meeting Minutes: - Gary Cole moves to approve the 10/11 minutes - No objections. 3) Offer to discuss SPML shortcomings with Mark Diodati Richard Sand: States that Oasis has been in touch with Mark Diodati from Burton. Mark organized a SPML roundtable discussion at last Catalyst Conference. Oasis has been attempting to arrange a roundtable discussion with Mark. A call with Mark and the PSTC is tentatively schedule for normal PSTC meeting timeslot on 11/8/10. Hal Lockhart: Asks if the email message sent to mailing list about ten minutes before the start of this meeting was seen Richard Sand: Clarifies that at this time we are looking to get committee consensus on a discussion with Mark. Prateek Mishra: Expresses a concern with the proposed discussion around IP. Hal Lockhart: Suggest that this should be ok as long as this is not an official meeting. Suggests that we can have a short official meeting after the discussion with Mark is done to approve minutes and similar activities. Richard Sand: Agrees that we can do that. Gary Cole: Asks if we need to figure out format, and send out questions to Mark ahead of time. Asks if members are interested in preparing questions. Richard Sand: States that he was expecting to have a free-form discussion with Mark. Hal Lockhart: States that he expects the discussion point with Mark to be: "What's missing from the current SPML spec" Richard Sand: States that if anyone wants to send questions for Mark in advance, to please send those questions out to the mailing list. 4) PSTC charter. Richard Sand: States that another draft was sent out to the mailing for charter revision. Asks if we are we ready to take an official vote, or do we need more revisions. Gary Cole: Asks if we need to produce a finalized draft with link placeholders removed, etc. Also we need to remove the phrase "XML-based" from the revised charter. Asks if anyone feels that removing that phrase would change the scope of the charter. Hal Lockhart: States the revisions to the charter should be in the final form before a ballot is taken. Also states that with regards to the removal of the XML-based phrase that he suggests taking the issue of scope change up with the TC admin. He believes that the TC admin has 15 days to review changes to the charter; but it's probably best to bring the potential issues raise regarding change in scope up directly with the TC admin. Richard Sand: Suggests getting an informal consensus from group first before bringing the potential change of scope issue up with the TC admin. Hal Lockhart: Asks for clarification on exactly what we are discussing. Richard Sand (and Gary Cole): Clarifies that this discussion is in regards to an email sent to the mailing list on Friday, October 22nd asking if the phrase "XML-based framework" should be removed from the charter to make the charter more flexible. Prateek Mishra: States that the immediate need he has is for is for an XML-based technology. As long as we can support XML, that's fine. States that if other transports can be supported, that's good. Also brings up that a vastly different technology like REST-based transports changes the "thinking" of the TC quite a bit. Gary Cole: Suggests not removing the phrase as it looks like it will result in a scope change. Hal Lockhart: States that re-chartering is a big deal - almost like starting a new TC. Re-chartering needs to deal with licensing and IP issues. Richard Sand: States that the phrase "XML-based" struck him as an unneeded constraint to the charter. Hal Lockhart: Proposes that we keep the "XML-based" language in place. Prateek Mishra: States that he would prefer not to expand scope. Hal Lockhart: Mentions that saying "XML" does not make it impossible to support a RESTful model; brings up SAML as an example. Richard Sand: States that he has suggesting dropping the phrase to leave things open for a departure from XML entirely. Hal Lockhart: Nobody has brought us such a requirement, and that we can always do this proposed re-chartering to remove the XML-based language later, should the need arise. Richard Sand: Objects to motion to keep the phrase. Thinks that "XML" is not really needed in the charter. Gary Cole: Takes a vote to either keep the "XML-based" language in place, or to remove the language from the draft charter. Gary Cole - Keep Karsten Huneycutt - Keep Hal Lockhart - Keep Prateek Mishra - Keep Dan Perry - Drop Richard Sand - Drop Kent Spaulding - Keep 6 keeps, 2 drops. "XML-based" language will be kept in the revised charter draft. Hal Lockhart: Noticed that Prateek submitted some comments on the draft charter to the list. Prateek Mishra: Wanted to see some language to promote submitting use cases for provisioning in general, and not SPML specifically. Anil John: Asks if Prateek means having the language open enough to leverage other areas like SAML notifications? Prateek Mishra: Clarifies that he's not looking make things that broad. Anil John: Asks if it's ok to mention SAML? Hal Lockhart: Mentions that SPML is based on SAML. Prateek Mishra: States the he is looking to take use cases up to a higher level - more than just SPML. For example, should look at use cases that have more content then just SPML specifics. Gary Cole: States that current proposal says that charter is focused around SPML, but does allow us to have use cases that use SPML along with other technologies, such a use-case would be "of interest to members". Doesn't think that this prohibits us from considering other use cases. Prateek Mishra: States that his concern is that he doesn't want to see other technologies be excluded from the use case discussion because they are not SPML. Gary Cole: Clarifies that draft charter mentions that interactions are to be included if relevant. Richard Sand: Agrees. Anil John: States that he can sympathize with Prateek's point. Suggests that we should document in the meeting minutes that we consider other areas related to SPML and not be restrictive. Hal Lockhart: States that in looking back at the current charter there does seem to be some narrowing in scope. Lost resource and service provisioning. Gary Cole: States that those are included in the umbrella term "related entities". Hal Lockhart: Doesn't agree as those are very different terms. Richard Sand: Interesting point that you raise. Hal Lockhart: Clarifies that services are a types of resources. Thinks that related attributes are more identity attributes or identity repositories. Richard Sand: Asks about how roles and services are considered with regards to the term "related entities". Hal Lockhart: States that roles and services are related entities. Also states that the current SPML charter mentioned provisioning non-user entities - i.e. routers, switches, etc. Richard Sand: States that he is OK with this draft as is, but is open to more edits if the group would like them. Prateek Mishra: Agrees that the scope of the charter in the new draft is being narrowed. Supports this narrowing as the broadness in the current charter is a point of confusion, and feels that the narrowing is better. Richard Sand: Agrees Gary Cole: Agrees Prateek Mishra: Suggests changing the draft to use the word enterprise. Richard Sand: States that he feels the charter is important. Suggests that Prateek should send exact suggestions & text out to mailing list for comments: Prateek Mishra: Acknowledges taking the action to send his suggestions out to the list. Hal Lockhart: Suggests keeping the old link for call to action, but leaving date of approval and minutes of approval blank. 5) Use Cases Richard Sand: Mentions that he still has an action item to send out his use cases. Hal Lockhart: Suggests taking stock on who has submitted use cases and who will submit soon. Gary Cole: States that Anil john has submitted his use cases. Tom Zeller sent link with his use case to the list. Darran Rolls had said that he was planning to submit some of his use cases. Richard Sand: Mentions again that he is planning to submit use cases. Gary Cole: Suggests that we may get more use cases out of discussions with Mark Diodati. Richard Sand: Agrees 6) AOB Richard Sands: Asks if there is any other business to discuss? Richard Sand: Check for latecomers (none). Gary Cole: Moves to adjourn. Richard Sand: States that the next call is in two weeks. Mark Diodati will join us so it will be an unofficial. The plan with be to talk with Mark first, then have a short meeting if time permits, or wait until the following call if we do not have time. Dan Perry 239 Kings Highway East | Haddonfield | New Jersey 08033 | USA Mobile: +1 609 721 2219 | Office: +1 856 795 1722 | Fax: +1 856 795 1733
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]