RE: [ws-i-ms] Re: Proposed Charter for OASIS Web Services Basic andReliable Secure Profiles (WS-BRSP) Technical Committee

[Ram Jeyaraman <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>]

Jeff,

I understand that there are legal concerns about the Non-Assert IPR mode. I don't have all the details, but if there is a desire to move away from RAND then I would support the use of RF-on-RAND, which is accepted worldwide and doesn't appear to raise any legal concerns.

Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Mischkinsky [mailto:jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 12:31 AM
To: Ram Jeyaraman
Cc: ws-i-ms@lists.oasis-open.org Section
Subject: [ws-i-ms] Re: Proposed Charter for OASIS Web Services Basic and Reliable Secure Profiles (WS-BRSP) Technical Committee

Ram,
It's different work, different forum - and i would question whether RAND for something as fundamental as basic profiles is appropriate.
One *might* have been able to argue the case 10 years when ws-i was founded by MS and IBM, but its a different world.
You haven't explained what the complications are - just asserted its working fine, so why change.
Does Microsoft have a problem ensuring that the work done by this TC be under the non-assert mode.
cheers,
  jeff

On Apr 14, 2011, at 10:48 AM, Ram Jeyaraman wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> The complications are as noted in my email - that using the Non- 
> Assert Mode would mean that the work in OASIS would be attached to the 
> existing work on different legal terms from the original. Since the 
> WS-I commitments appear to be working fine, I don't see why we would 
> create problems unnecessarily.
>
> Please let me know if you still have questions, as I agree that we can 
> resolve issues in parallel.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Mischkinsky [mailto:jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 7:28 AM
> To: Ram Jeyaraman
> Cc: ws-i-ms@lists.oasis-open.org Section
> Subject: Re: Proposed Charter for OASIS Web Services Basic and 
> Reliable Secure Profiles (WS-BRSP) Technical Committee
>
> hi ram,
> Would you please explain what you mean when u say that we will have 
> counsel discussing rather than having the work moving forward.
>
> It takes  5 individuals from 2 OASIS organizational members to propose 
> a charter which kicks off a 30 day discussion period. I'm guessing its 
> going to be another 2 months before we get to a Call for 
> Participation. So if you think the IPR mode needs to be discussed, 
> then that can certainly go in parallel.
>
> Please explain the complications that will arise, so that we can 
> discuss them.
>   So far I haven't heard of any complications.
> cheers,
> jeff
> On Apr 13, 2011, at 12:16 PM, Ram Jeyaraman wrote:
>
>> Dear WS-I Member Section Steering Committee members,
>>
>> I reviewed the proposed Charter (attached) for Basic Profiles (1.1, 
>> 1.2, and 2.0) and Reliable Secure Profile (1.0) and would like to 
>> flag one concern regarding compatibility with existing WS-I works.
>>
>> The WS-I Deliverables were developed under the WS-I governance 
>> documents[1], which used a standard "RAND" commitment from the 
>> participants[2]. The draft Charter[3], however, specifies the OASIS 
>> Non-Assert Mode for the continuing work, which means that the 
>> continuing work in OASIS would be appended to the existing work on 
>> different legal terms from the original. In maintenance mode there 
>> are usually fewer concerns about intellectual property than with full 
>> specifications, but it still makes no sense to break the WS-I terms.
>>
>> It would be better, I think, to maintain the consistency; I am not 
>> aware of any problems or objections of any kind to the IPR mode that 
>> applies to WS-I deliverables, and I am concerned that using the OASIS 
>> Non-Assert when WS-I was using RAND will create unnecessary problems.
>> If we change the IPR mode at this point, we'll have counsel 
>> discussing IPR modes when it would be better simply to keep the work 
>> moving forward. It would be much simpler, and it will avoid 
>> unnecessary complications, if we apply the same IPR terms to the new 
>> work as to the existing work. The OASIS mode that appears to do this 
>> best is RAND.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> [1] http://www.ws-i.org/about/governance.aspx
>> [2] http://www.ws-i.org/docs/Membership/20040505.WS-IIPRAgreement.pdf
>> [3] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-i-ms/201103/msg00009.html
>> <WS-I BP-RSP Charter 03-26-2011.pdf>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
> --
> Jeff Mischkinsky			          		jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
> Sr. Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware 				+1(650)506-1975
> 	and Web Services Standards           			500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 2OP9
> Oracle								Redwood Shores, CA 94065
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Jeff Mischkinsky			          		jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
Sr. Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware 				+1(650)506-1975
	and Web Services Standards           			500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 2OP9
Oracle								Redwood Shores, CA 94065










---------------------------------------------------------------------
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