Interop Guide - What is the Appropriate Track For Now?

["Lipton, Paul C" <Paul.Lipton@ca.com>]

Hi all,

Matt suggested we take this Interop SC discussion offline due to lack  of time. Here's my concern. 

I'm not a lawyer, but what I've always heard is that IP doesn't have to be an "advanced technology" for a vendor to have an essential claim. IP could be a specific API or a "page turn," as we've seen before in our industry. As I see it, I think the Interop Guide, as it currently stands, needs to be covered by OASIS patent provisions. It is not currently covered.

IMO, the Interop Doc has normative content, e.g., parameter order and statements like "The PrimaryScript element *must* also be specified in case the artifact template includes a single script only" (my emphasis). By placing this document, which might possibly contain IP, in the correct track as a Standards Track Work Product, we can release it just as quickly with some limited standing as a CSD just as easily as we could a CND, but with adequate patent provision protection for the TC members.

However, it is important to note that we are NOT locked into the standards track for the Interop Guide for v.next at the CSD stage. For v.next, I believe that we can easily refactor the spec and the interop guide as we see fit. If we want, we can move all the normative content from the Interop Guide to the Spec doc, and  return the Interop Guide to the Non-Standards Track as a true best practices document, with no harm done. 

Thanks,
Paul