RE: [wss] Corrected Minutes of the 1/14/03 telecom

["Flinn, Don" <Don.Flinn@quadrasis.com>]

Hi Ron

In response to your question about whether the minutes accurately captured the assurances requested and the assurances offered.  I tried to capture the words of all the members but may have missed some.  If anyone has some corrections or critical words that I may have missed,  I would be happy to update the minutes with such missing or mis-recorded critical wording.

My own recollection of the sense of this matter was that Tim was looking for reassurances that both IBM and Microsoft agreed with the need and urgency for a new TC to be formed quickly and that Microsoft and IBM would participate in the new TC. Further, that the wss TC needed and required of the new TC definition of security policy and negotiation, which, it was understood, would be part of other, broader policy objectives for the new TC. The IBM and Microsoft representatives gave these assurances.  As for what the wss TC should create as input to the new TC, I believe that Tim's words cover that point- "This TC defines parameters and mechanism that need to be agreed between consumer and sender.  Just develop a List.   Leave out the negotiation and the schema.". After that the updated motion was read and unanimously accepted with no objections as to what was intended.

Don

-----Original Message-----
From: ronald monzillo [mailto:ronald.monzillo@sun.com]
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 1:38 PM
To: Flinn, Don
Cc: wss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wss] Corrected Minutes of the 1/14/03 telecom


Don,

I'd like to clarify parts of the minutes, especially what I was trying 
to convey when I spoke.

> Ron Monzillo Shouldnt we agree as a TC whether we want to do work 
> before discussing changing the charter. There is disagreement on what 
> the wording of charter means.

and how can we decide if the charter needs to be changed without first 
coming to a common understanding
and agreement of what work it is that we want to test against the scope 
of the charter.

> Ron  There are different aspects to policy  Policy about binding to 
> different parts; the way different types of policy are used; Domain 
> specific policy. We need to understand how to use this. I support the 
> idea that the different parts should be done. 

I described 3 different aspects of the policy/qop space, suggested that 
the different
aspects would likely fall into the charter of different forums, and 
stated that
in my view, the WSS TC has responsability in the last area.

. The advertisement or binding of requirements and capabilities
to service definitions (eg. WSDL) and invocations.
. The domain independent requirements and capabilities model or framework
. The domain specific representation of requirements and capabilities in
support of the use of the wss security mechanisms

> Ron Monzilla  ...

Monzillo -

> Ron  Where are we? We should decide on the nature of the work before 
> the form it should take. Experience in the space for .host and DNS are 
> good examples....

because they demonstrate precedent for evolution of the methods used for 
exchanging
such information between systems.

> Tim  Im seeking two assurances  1. IBM & Micro feel the time is 
> right to form a TC 2. Both will participate  Assure not too clear on 
> #2. Would accept friendly amendment if both assurances are given.

Do the minutes accurately capture the assurances that were requested and 
those that were offered?
I thought there was another aspect of the request relating to what the 
new TC would accept as
its inputs.

Ron

Flinn, Don wrote:

>The minutes of the 1/14/03 telecom have been corrected and are attached.  If there are any other corrections please send them to the list.
>
>Don
>
> <<Minutes_1_14_03.doc>> 
>  
>