RE: [rights] getting started on requirements

["Reddy, Hari" <Hari.Reddy@CONTENTGUARD.COM>]

Title: RE: [rights] getting started on requirements

Hello John/Team:
I would like to clarify a point that from reading your response may have not been made clear enough at the meeting.

The "schedule" that I presented was not a definitive schedule but a template or illustrative draft to be filled in by the appropriate Subcommittees who clearly will have more knowledge on their respective deliverables. I should have just deleted the works "RLTC Work Plan - DRAFT" or made the words "DRAFT" 100 point font! The purpose of the template was to illustrate the external dates that this team should be cognizant of. The only dates that I had were those of MPEG which, as was reiterated by others, were very valuable to include. It is the intent to include other external dates from other standards bodies/organizations into this master template.

There was no intention to present a definitive schedule. If you look closely, I just put in just a few random items that this team needs to work on. For example, I listed times for a specification review with no release of the specification to the RLTC...So in your words, this was "absurd" but I argue that the intent to illustrate the need for external linkages is not. The words in the 30-60 day plan will also be altered as we have the opportunity to meet further. The tools of an integrated plan and a 30-60 outlook will be standing tools that this team will use going forward.

The work process to develop the RLTC schedule which I thought that I explained during our development of the Subcommittee ("SC") structure (which was before I put up the "DRAFT") is for each SC to meet and provide to me their individual work plans. I will then integrate these and attempt to resolve any interdependences and present it back to the RLTC as an integrated plan for review.

I apologize in advance if there was any confusion. I thought that we had addressed this.

Regards,
Hari

-----Original Message-----
From: John Erickson [mailto:john_erickson@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 10:18 AM
To: rights@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [rights] getting started on requirements

BobG writes:

> Specifically, the best way to achieve broad consensus and buy-in
> on a DRML is to...

JSE: I vote for the generalized term "REL" (rights expression language...)

> 1)identify the relevant organizations

Two that I think are critical are WAP Forum and 3GPP. They have already been
quite active in the DRM standardization area, indeed appear to understand the
need for open DRM standards better than general purpose computing currently
does.

I have made contact with sources who might be able to suggest how to efficiently
and properly obtain the requirements of the wireless community...

Bob continues....
> My point here is that we have to be realistic about the
> schedule for collecting requirements from other standards
> efforts. If we don't give people sufficient time to do this
> according to their own processes, they will not buy into
> the idea that our TC is going to speak for them....

JSE: Frankly, I felt that the schedule proposed during the meeting was absurd,
if we are AT ALL serious about gathering requirements that address our mission,
as captured in the charter. Indeed, I think it would be absurd even if we were
only considering MPEG requirements!

John

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>