[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes for Telecon, Tuesday 8 April 2003
Minutes for WSSTC Telecon, Tuesday 8 April 2003 Dial in info: 1-913-905-1400 Passcode: 214098 Minutes taken by Steve Anderson ====================================================================== Summary ====================================================================== Votes: - Minutes from 25 March 2003 meeting accepted (unanimous) - TC will hold a first sanctioned interop event and F2F in mid June (passed with 14 for, 10 against, 13 abstaining) New (General) Action Items: - Paul to post interop/F2F voting suggestions Issues List Action Items & Status Updates: - none ====================================================================== Raw Notes ====================================================================== > > Agenda: > > 1. Roll call > - Attendance attached to bottom of these minutes - Quorum achieved > > 2. Review minutes from previous meeting (3/25/2003) > < http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200303/msg00062.html > > - [VOTE] unanimous consent, accepted > > 3. Web page migration update (quick status update) > - Kelvin: is anyone having problems? - Martijn: was getting Javascript errors, is there an address to send questions/problems to? - Kelvin: write to webmaster@oasis-open.org > > 4. Discuss any remaining interop related issues > - Chris: we've closed all the issues - just waiting for Tony to send updated core spec based on last call - Kelvin: that would be draft -12 - Tony: it's done, but hasn't been able to post it - should have it posted by this evening - Ron: has question on scenarios, about encryption - we could represent the key use for encryption in a couple different ways - there can be some variability in how we represent the encrypted data, via ref list in header, or an encrypted key with refs - Hal: scenarios have - Hal: also has question on scenarios - thinks the encrypted key should be first - Chris: correct, will fix right away - Hal: choice of using 'content' rather than 'element' - Chris: correct, should be 'element', will fix - Hal: was trying to understand scenario 3, needs some editing to make understandable - Chris: how about we work together on making that acceptable - Hal: also had question about intentions with 'TBD's in the doc - Chris: just wanted to do as little manual SOAP as necessary - will get responses added in - Chris: will attempt to get new rev out today/tomorrow - Martijn: question about scenario 2 - Chris: we will have pre-assigned certificates we'll give out to everyone - Martijn: another point, will usernames/passwords be known before? - will passwords be reverse of username? - Chris: what to people want to do? - Ron: why bother reversing them? - Chris: just didn't want to reuse username directly, to demonstrate that we are processing passwords - Jerry: asking for preloaded set of uids/pwds - Chris: will propose a set - > > 5. Discussion of next F2F place and time > - Kelvin: not sure what folks can see of the ballot results, may just be the numbers - had a fair spread of responses - net was around May/June - Chris: interop testing is more of a company activity, but the vote was on an individual basis - Hal: can you capture that with data available to the chairs? - [checking results] - Chris: for those that voted for a date, were you voting for a date you'd have software? - seems to be 'yes' - Ron: most were picking a date we'd have an implementation by - Kelvin: there may well be more than one of these events, and the goal isn't to embarrass those that don't participate - Paul: if that's the case, there are some with implementations now, so can we not have an earlier event? - Kelvin: that's what we were trying to arrive at - Hal: even if we decide on an earliest possibility, logistics would dictate it being no earlier than May - Chris: here's the by-company tally - 6 for May, 6 for June, 3-4 for July - proposes doing it late May, then again late June or July - Ron: why not just target June? - Chris: there are things we can learn from the earlier event that will benefit the later event - Ron: you've got 9-10 companies that won't be ready until June - Paul: having fewer is actually easier - Tony: should everyone wait until you are ready? - Ron: critical mass is around June, and now we've changed the discussion to deal with 2 events rather than 1 - Paul: the intent is to improve the spec, and there are 6 companies that are willing to meet in May to do that - Ron: since discussion has changed, that would have affected the ballot responses - Chris: interprets poll to show that there is a group ready and willing to meet in May, and another group in June - can't see how meeting with those that are ready in May could do anything but help - Ron: will those traveling to the May event turn around and travel to another event in June? - Kelvin: let's slow down, consider what is best for the spec - Ed: providing insight on Novell's vote of July - wanted to allow for as much time as possible - would like to see one sooner if sufficient number of participants are ready - Novell would participate in sooner event if possible - Kelvin: when we talked in Baltimore about this first, several folks talked about how a big bang first event would make things difficult - we should have an expectation of doing this at least twice - Don: there's an elephant in the room we are ignoring, the marketing aspects, which the ealier/smaller group will benefit from - Kelvin: agrees, and we have discussed not making a big press issue of these efforts, and even avoided tagging the doc set with any 'interop' terms - Rob: we all agreed in Baltimore NOT to do marketing around this - Kelvin: agrees, sees it as a gentlepersons' agreement to treat it honorably - Jerry: we don't always have control over marketing arms - Hal: minutes and activities are open in OASIS, so it's not hard for the public to find this out - Ed: suggests pulling July desires back into June, where everyone can participate, and any earlier private testing results can be provided on the list - Kelvin: recalls W3C/OASIS meeting in Boston, where timely progress was clearly called for - concerned that delaying the event will allow things to drag out and miss that directive - Ed: thinks progress shouldn't be held up because of 1 company - Ron: would like to focus on one event - Ron: [MOTION] To hold event, based on scenarios XXX, in mid June - Ed: seconds, reiterates usefulness of April/May private testing results - Tony: what would be difference in that vs. having smaller interop event in April/May - Chris: everyone's been discouraging making a big deal out of the interop effort, but this distinction seems to make the June event more of a big deal - Ed: bilateral, over-the-internet testing is what he is envisioning - if you have travel budget to spend, great, but don't make it a TC event - Chris: don't see the need to discourage those that want to meet F2F, which is how this kind of testing works best - has a set of people sitting in a holding pattern, who could be providing useful results - Tony: we can't make it in June, May is it - [returning to motion] - Chris: is this to just have one in June, or to ONLY have one in June? - Ed: the only TC-sanctioned event is June, and all other private, informal testing results are welcomed - [MOTION restated] TC will hold a first interop event and F2F in mid June - Don: friendly amendment, to add 'sanctioned' - [MOTION restated] TC will hold a first sanctioned interop event and F2F in mid June - Chris: wants to comment that it is not to our mutual advantage to have unsanctioned testing - [ ... more discussion ... ] - call to question - [VOTE] 14 yes, 10 no, 13 abstain, therefore motion passes - quorum re-verified - strawpoll of who can participate in June, for interop and F2F? - Steve: suggests on online ballot on dates, etc - will be looking for location either central or western US - Kelvin: thinking we'll do interop first, maybe 2 days, then do F2F, also maybe 2 days - Chris: suggesting doing interop in morning and F2F in afternoon, for 2-3 days - concerned with total length of time for those that participate in both - Paul: if it's on West coast, begin interop on Monday pm, so folks can travel Mon morning, continuing Tues am, then hold F2F Tues pm through Thurs am - Kelvin: concerned with setup time for people coming off the plane Mon mid-day - Hal: nothing preventing people from working Mon evening - Paul: how much post-interop spec work is there to do? - Kelvin: thinks there are around 10 issues - Paul: not sure how to allot time for interop & post-interop spec discussion - Martijn: thinks it's useful to block testing time separate from F2F - advocates 1.5 days testing & 1-1.5 days of F2F work - Ron: what about conducting testing & F2F discussion concurrently? - Kelvin: probably have a mixture of individuals that would want to be involved with both - Paul: proposes noon Monday to noon Thursday format - [discussion of online voting] - [ACTION] Paul to post interop/F2F voting suggestions - Jerry: wants to clarify that post-interop discussion can carry on prior to interop event - Kelvin: agrees > > 6. Update from the editors > - Kelvin: saw one update from PhilG - any other editorial updates? - seems to be none - PhilHB: has not seen comments on his docs - Tim: if this is for the X509 profile, he has posted comments - PhilHB: found them, will review - Ron: there were a significant number of comments from Frederick, which caused a re-write - will produce another rev in the next week or so - Kelvin: generally need editors to verify our links to other docs > > 7. Discuss post interop spec issues > - none > > 8. Other business > - Martijn: question about applying XML Signature to documents using SOAP with attachments - there was a document from Frederick, but is there anything more up to date? - Chris: there are other groups working in this space, and we should wait to see what progress they make - Ron: we do discuss how to encrypt an attachment, does that use some unique facility of XML Encryption? - Chris: it uses cypher reference - Ron: how might this relate to signing? - [discussion] > > 9. Adjourn > - Adjourned - will meet again in 2 weeks ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Attendance of Voting Members: Gene Thurston AmberPoint Frank Seibenlist Argonne National Lab Merlin Hughes Baltimore Technologies Irving Reid Baltimore Technologies Peter Dapkus BEA Hal Lockhart BEA Guillermo Lao ContentGuard TJ Pannu ContentGuard Shawn Sharp Cyclone Commerce Ganesh Vaideeswaran Documentum Tim Moses Entrust Toshihiro Nishimura Fujitsu Yutaka Kudo Hitachi Maryann Hondo IBM Kelvin Lawrence IBM Anthony Nadalin IBM Nataraj Nagaratnam IBM Don Flinn Individual Phil Griffin Individual Venkat Danda IONA Technology Paul Cotton Microsoft Chris Kaler Microsoft Chris Kurt Microsoft Prateek Mishra Netegrity Frederick Hirsch Nokia Senthil Sengodan Nokia Ed Reed Novell Charles Knouse Oblix Steve Anderson OpenNetwork Jerry Schwarz Oracle Eric Gravengaard Reactivity Rob Philpott RSA Security Peter Rostin RSA Security Martijn de Boer SAP Pete Wenzel SeeBeyond Yassir Elley Sun Microsystems Ronald Monzillo Sun Microsystems Sirish Vepa Sybase Jan Alexander Systinet Don Adams TIBCO John Weiland US Navy Phillip Hallam-Baker VeriSign Attendance of Observers or Prospective Members: John Hughes Entegrity Membership Status Changes: Michael Nguyen The IDA of Singapore - Granted voting status after call John Hughes Entegrity - Granted voting status after call Padraig Moloney NASA - Requested membership 3/31/2003 -- Steve
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]