[wss] Closing arguments

[Tim Moses <tim.moses@entrust.com>]

Title: Closing arguments

Colleagues - Please don't take any offence at anything said here.  Email is such an inadequate medium for expressing nuanced positions.  It is all meant in a spirit of collegiality.  Picture it spoken by someone with an inane grin on his face.

I expect we will finally get a chance to vote on the QoP issue during tomorrow's telecon.  The motion is ...

"The WSS TC resolves to form a sub-committee and instructs its members to advance the work of the QoP discussion group to OASIS standard by the Summer of 2003."

For the benefit of those that were not able to be present at the face-to-face, Chris and John raised objections.

Chris had two issues ...

1. he had not found an opportunity to review the report of the discussion group himself, and
2. Microsoft would have to bring so many individuals to a discussion of this topic that it would inevitably cause suspicion amongst the remainder of the industry.

I can't believe Chris expects us to take either of these objections seriously ;-).

John, on the other hand, had a valid objection.  He seemed to be suggesting that the "Roadmap" process will produce a policy framework into which QoP will fit, and therefore, the proper sequence of events is to develop the framework, and then "particularize" it for security policy.  Unfortunately, he is not able to tell us when the policy framework will be available, nor when he will be able to tell us when it will be available.  So, we are left to make an educated guess.

My educated guess is that, assuming the framework will not build on any existing work, it will be summer 2004 before we can agree on and stabilize such a general framework.  Of course, we'll understand the general principles of the framework long before that.  But, we'll have to wait until then for interoperable solutions.

In the survey conducted by the QoP discussion group, it emerged that people felt a need for a QoP solution in the Summer 2003 timeframe.

So, the question boils down to: can we afford to wait twelve months (summer 2003 - summer 2004) for a solution to the QoP problem?  If you feel that, during this interval, agreeing security parameters by telephone is an acceptable solution, then you may reject the motion.  If, on the other hand, you feel it is necessary to demonstrate a more integrated solution, then you may want to vote in favour.

All the best.  Tim.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Moses
613.270.3183