RE: [tosca-interop] Interop Guide - What is the Appropriate Track For Now?

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

Hi Thomas,

What we do with the Interop Guide should not affect our timeline for v1 Spec at all. That should continue to go forward towards OASIS Standard at all due speed. Each work product (doc) has its own path, votes, etc. 

Hope I'm understanding the question correctly.

Thanks,
Paul 



-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Spatzier [mailto:thomas.spatzier@de.ibm.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 1:25 PM
To: Lipton, Paul C
Cc: dug@us.ibm.com; Matt Rutkowski (mrutkows@us.ibm.com); Probst, Richard (richard.probst@sap.com); Simon D Moser; tosca-interop@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [tosca-interop] Interop Guide - What is the Appropriate Track For Now?

Hi Paul,

so does that mean that we can still keep the timeline for the "core" TOSCA spec (i.e. don't have to re-do public review and so on) and just start a draft of another sibling "spec". If that is possible, then I guess it sounds like a good solution. Because I tend to agree that the document is more than just hints and tipps on implementation ...

Regards,
Thomas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH Tivoli Service Automation Manager Development, D2705 Schoenaicher Str. 220, D-71032 Boeblingen, Germany
Phone: +49-7031-16-1219
Email: thomas.spatzier@de.ibm.com

IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH / Vorsitzende des
Aufsichtsrats: Martina Koederitz
Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen / Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294



From:	"Lipton, Paul C" <Paul.Lipton@ca.com>
To:	"tosca-interop@lists.oasis-open.org"
            <tosca-interop@lists.oasis-open.org>,
Cc:	Simon D Moser/Germany/IBM@IBMDE, "Matt Rutkowski
            (mrutkows@us.ibm.com)" <mrutkows@us.ibm.com>, "Probst, Richard
            (richard.probst@sap.com)" <richard.probst@sap.com>,
            "dug@us.ibm.com" <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date:	14.01.2013 19:02
Subject:	[tosca-interop] Interop Guide - What is the Appropriate Track
            For Now?
Sent by:	<tosca-interop@lists.oasis-open.org>



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




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php