OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

security-services message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: Re: [security-services] proposed "committee last call" process


General comments:

- I think sec-conform and glossary must be part of the deliverables.
- I agree with the general process you outline.
- All editors and the issue list editor will have to confirm their high
   availability in December and January to make this work.
- I suspect that there are many outstanding (if somewhat small) issues that 
will
   arise with all the documents; we probably won't get through voting on all of
   them in January.
- I think we *must* publish interim committee drafts in mid-January, even 
if we
   don't call them "last call" drafts.
- I still think we should support this publication round with some publicity
   and outreach materials, regardless of the outcome on the "last call" issue.

         Eve

At 04:23 PM 12/4/01 -0800, Jeff Hodges wrote:
>during the focus group concall today, we discussed more fine-grained steps we
>need to take along the path to issuing our "committee specification" for
>OASIS-wide review.
>
>Some of us on the call felt that what we're striving for here by the end 
>of Dec
>is to have a doc set that's ready for what we'd call "working group last call"
>in the IETF/W3C context.
>
>The overall connotation of "last call" is "we're done, let's sit down and
>review the docs in detail".
>
>We nominally came up with the detailed process noted below. I've taken the
>liberty of filling-in some of the more detailed blanks.
>
>Below the process is a nominal proposed schedule we felt we should work
>towards, in light of the process. There's a couple of ISSUES called out in the
>proposed schedule.
>
>Please review and comment on all of this.
>
>thanks,
>
>JeffH & Joe
>
>ps: we've attached references to various process docs at the end of this msg.
>
>
>                  -------------------------------
>Proposed "Committee Last Call" process:
>
>0. This is where we are now. At this stage, the doc(s)'s maturity level is
>"committee working draft".
>
>
>1. In order to issue a "committee last call" on a doc or docs, there should be
>no open action items or issues associated with the doc(s).
>
>
>2. A "committee last call" is issued by the committee co-chairs via an email
>message to the security-services list. We will leverage content from IETF and
>W3C examples. The "committee last call" message identifies the docs, lays out
>the timeframe and vehicles for submitting comments, and provides some context
>wrt the last call process.
>
>At this stage, the maturity level of the doc(s) is "candidate committee
>specification".
>
>
>3. People review the docs and submit comments (via the list -- comments 
>must be
>in writing and available for all to see).
>
>
>4. upon the "last call cutoff date" or shortly thereafter, the chairs and doc
>editors summarize the comments received to the committee. If there are issues
>with the doc(s) that the committee regards as "showstopper normative technical
>issues", then the doc(s) don't pass "committee last call", and the process
>iterates back to (1) (since there are again open issues with the docs). Else,
>go to (5).
>
>detailed process for step (4):
>
>In order to decide whether there are any "showstopper normative technical
>issues", the doc editors will summarize to the committee the issues raised
>during last call (e.g. via a msg to the list). The co-chairs will facilitate a
>walk-through of the issues list for each doc (if any) during a formal 
>committee
>meeting.
>
>If a issue has a champion, and no one challenges the issue, then the doc
>doesn't pass committee last call (i.e. goto (1)).
>
>If an issue has a champion, and the issue is challenged, a formal committee
>vote is held. The question being voted on will be constructed so the result of
>the vote will be to either "the issue is a showstopper normative techical one:
>re-do Committee Last Call", or the issue is closed (e.g. it wasn't felt to 
>be a
>normative technical one), or it is deferred (e.g. the issue may be a normative
>technical one, but it isn't a showstopper at this point). If the issue is
>closed or deffered, it doesn't hinder the doc(s) passing committee last call.
>
>If an issue no longer has anyone willing to champion it, it is closed or
>deferred, and doesn't hinder the doc(s) passing committee last call.
>
>
>
>5. The doc(s) have passed "committee last call" and are subject to
>non-normative editing. They remain at this step (5) and at "condidate 
>committee
>specification" maturity level until all all non-normative editorial issues are
>closed. Once these non-nomative editorial issues are closed, goto (6).
>
>
>6. The doc(s) are annointed the maturity level of "committee 
>specification" and
>are ready for submission to OASIS per OASIS "standards process" (see ref
>below).
>
>                  -------------------------------
>Proposed schedule:
>
>5-Dec (Wed): Prateek to issue bindings-07
>
>12-Dec (Wed): comments on bindings-07 due.
>
>~17-Dec (Mon): Prateek to issue bindings-08 based upon feedback on -07.
>
>
>ISSUE: any interim dates similar to above for issuance/iteration on core-2x?
>
>
>21-Dec: Have SAML doc set ready for Committee Last Call issuance. Doc set is
>nominally..
>
>  draft-sstc-core-2x
>  draft-sstc-bindings-model-0x
>
>ISSUE: we need to decide whether these docs should be part of the above list..
>
>  draft-sstc-sec-consider-0x
>  draft-sstc-conform-spec-0x
>
>..any others?
>
>
>21-Dec: Issue "Committee Last Call" msg to the list, with "last call cutoff"
>date of 15-Jan (Tue).
>
>
>15-Jan (Tue): "last call cutoff" date  (gives ~2 weeks from 1-Jan for 
>review of
>docs)
>
>
>22-Jan (Tue): SSTC/Focus concall: walk-through issues culled from last 
>call and
>do any necessary voting. Decide whether docs passed committee last call.
>
>
>                  -------------------------------
>
>Refs:
>
>OASIS TECHNICAL COMMITTEE POLICY
>Section 2. Standards Process
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.shtml
>
>IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures
>http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2418.txt
>
>The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3
>http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt
>
>W3C Process Document
>  5.2 The W3C Recommendation Track
>http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/tr.html#Recs
>
>                  -------------------------------
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

--
Eve Maler                                    +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center   eve.maler @ sun.com



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC