FW: [security-services] Re: Last-call drafts and call for review now available on website

["Philpott, Robert" <rphilpott@rsasecurity.com>]

FYI - conclusion on discussion with Karl re: the TC process and our SSTC
last call.  We're all set.

Rob Philpott
Senior Consulting Engineer 
RSA Security Inc. 
Tel: 781-515-7115 
Mobile: 617-510-0893 
Fax: 781-515-7020 
mailto:rphilpott@rsasecurity.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Karl F. Best [mailto:karl.best@oasis-open.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 11:30 AM
To: Philpott, Robert
Subject: Re: [security-services] Re: Last-call drafts and call for
review now available on website

Rob:
Looks good.
-Karl


Philpott, Robert wrote:
> Karl - one of the reasons the SSTC uses a "last call" is to minimize
the
> probability that we will need to repeat the OASIS 30-day Public Review
> period.  This gives us a bit more certainty in our scheduling,
although
> it doesn't eliminate the possibility that it will still be required.
> 
> Anyway we are in sync. The schedule we're working toward includes:
> 
> *** start of SSTC process ***
> 1) vote to hold our internal SSTC last call period (requires simple
> majority)
> 2) SSTC last call period (minimum of 2 weeks)
> 3) update specs
> 
> *** start of OASIS process ***
> 1) a vote to CD (requires 2/3)
> 2) a vote to hold OASIS public review (requires simple majority)
> 3) 30-day OASIS Public Review
> 4) update specs if required
> 5) go back to OASIS step 3 if substantial changes were made
> 6) re-approve as CD (requires 2/3)
> 7) OASIS vote
> 
> Rob Philpott
> Senior Consulting Engineer 
> RSA Security Inc. 
> Tel: 781-515-7115 
> Mobile: 617-510-0893 
> Fax: 781-515-7020 
> mailto:rphilpott@rsasecurity.com
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl F. Best [mailto:karl.best@oasis-open.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 10:47 AM
> To: Eve L. Maler
> Cc: Philpott, Robert; security-services@lists.oasis-open.org; Dee
Schur;
> Robin Cover; pmishra@netegrity.com; Jeff Hodges;
> Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com
> Subject: Re: [security-services] Re: Last-call drafts and call for
> review now available on website
> 
> Eve:
> 
> All this is okay, except that step #4 is not optional; the TC must 
> reapprove the CD after the review.
> 
> Please send a sentence or two or three to Dee for her to include in
the 
> weekly news. What you've suggested (with the clarification) is about
> right.
> 
> (Sorry if I started a firestorm; I just wanted to make sure that we
were
> 
> all clear about what this step was and wasn't.)
> 
> -Karl
> 
> 
> 
> Eve L. Maler wrote:
> 
>>I'm keeping the cc list here so people can see the conclusion, but I 
>>suggested that any finer points should be discussed in private mail.
>>
>>Karl, since we're doing this at the TC stage and on the TC's 
>>recognizance only, it's prior to the steps you list below.  It's "step
> 
> 
>>0", if you like.  It goes like this:
>>
>>0. Last-call working draft review
>>1. Approve as CD
>>2. Public review
>>3 and 4. Revise and reapprove as CD (if necessary)
>>5. Vote to submit for OASIS Standard balloting
>>
>>Note that this step 0 is a practice of long standing in the SSTC (it 
>>predates the current TC process and the mandated 30-day CD review on
> 
> the 
> 
>>way to balloting, for example :-).  Now that I understand the text I
> 
> was 
> 
>>seeing in the TC process doc, I think it's clear that we need not 
>>lengthen our planned schedule.  But if you're willing to publicize
> 
> this 
> 
>>review period, then perhaps we modify the second sentence of my 
>>suggested blurb to say something like "...and is soliciting review 
>>comments and implementor feedback prior to preparing Committee Drafts 
>>(after which time the TC will conduct an additional 30-day CD
> 
> review)."
> 
>>    Eve
>>
>>Karl F. Best wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Rob:
>>>
>>>You're correct in that the Public Review is optional before the TC 
>>>finally approves the spec as a Committee Draft *if* that CD is not 
>>>going to be submitted for consideration as an OASIS Standard. If the 
>>>CD is going to be submitted then there must be a public review. But
>>
> as 
> 
>>>what is sent out for public review must be approved first as a CD, 
>>>maybe where we're at is the first CD approval.
>>>
>>>We do it like this: 1) approve as CD, 2) public review, 3) revise, 4)
>>
> 
>>>reapprove as CD, 5) vote to submit to OASIS.
>>>
>>>Steps 1-3 can be repeated as often as desired.
>>>
>>>My concern is that the TC has invented a new, extra-procedural step 
>>>named "last call". This is very confusing, both to people who are 
>>>acquainted with the OASIS process and won't know where this fits, as 
>>>well as to people who will confuse this with the W3C process.
>>>
>>>That said, I'm happy for us to announce this "review" (or whatever)
>>
> to 
> 
>>>our members; we should just be clear about where this fits in the 
>>>process to avoid confusion.
>>>
>>>-Karl
>>
>>
> 
> 


-- 
=================================================================
Karl F. Best
Vice President, OASIS
office  +1 978.667.5115 x206     mobile +1 978.761.1648
karl.best@oasis-open.org      http://www.oasis-open.org