wss message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: WSS-Minutes 12/2
- From: Maryann Hondo <mhondo@us.ibm.com>
- To: wss@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:36:10 -0500
Attendance of Voting Members
Gene Thurston AmberPoint
Frank Siebenlist Argonne National Lab
Merlin Hughes Baltimore Technologies
Peter Dapkus BEA
Symon Chang CommerceOne
Thomas DeMartini ContentGuard
Guillermo Lao ContentGuard
TJ Pannu ContentGuard
Sam Wei Documentum
John Hughes Entegrity
Tim Moses Entrust
Toshihiro Nishimura Fujitsu
Kefeng Chen GeoTrust
Irving Reid HP
Jason Rouault HP
Yutaka Kudo Hitachi
Derek Fu IBM
Kelvin Lawrence IBM
Anthony Nadalin IBM
Nataraj Nagaratnam IBM
Don Flinn Individual
Bob Morgan Individual
Paul Cotton Microsoft
Chris Kaler Microsoft
Ellen McDermott Microsoft
John Shewchuk Microsoft
Prateek Mishra Netegrity
Frederick Hirsch Nokia
Lloyd Burch Novell
Ed Reed Novell
Charles Knouse Oblix
Steve Anderson OpenNetwork
Vipin Samar Oracle
Eric Gravengaard Reactivity
Rob Philpott RSA Security
Blake Dournaee Sarvega
Coumara Radja Sarvega
Pete Wenzel SeeBeyond
Jonathan Tourzan Sony
Yassir Elley Sun Microsystems
Jeff Hodges Sun Microsystems
Attendance of Prospective Members
Davanum Srinivas CA
Paula Austel IBM
Maryann Hondo IBM
Ben Hammond RSA Security
Kevin Lewis Documentum
Membership Status Changes
Maryann Hondo IBM - Requested membership 11/26/2003
Ben Hammond RSA Security - Requested membership 12/1/2003
David Orchard BEA Systems - Requested membership 12/1/2003
Kevin Lewis Documentum - Requested membership 12/1/2003
Davanum Srinivas CA - Granted voting status after 12/2/2003 call
Senthil Sengodan Nokia - Lost voting status after 12/2/2003 call
Quorum achieved.
Any objections to the minutes?
<none>
taken
as approved
Update from the editors:
Ron
.....<not here> update soon
Tony....
had a hard drive crash the Friday before Thanksgiving.....trying to recover
....about 2 1/ weeks behind in recovering edits....
will need Ron and Chris to help out......
predicts a week and a half ....
will try to get it out before the next meeting
Other
documents?
Phil?
....<not on the call>
Chris....colllecting
issues, username/password being worked on by Tony
Kelvin:
After
the namespace issue discussion there will be minor changes needed in the
documents...
Issues List review:
Namespace Proposal #135, & #31
Kelvin,
Are there questions on the proposal?
Mail from Eve to indicate that we may not
need the ### ...... Kelvin to follow up with the staff to see if we need
to do this
Tony,
if they then require the ###, how to we adapt
when it gets put in place? Can we be exempt if we go ahead without it?
Rob
Is there a reference to the message for this?
Kelvin:
It was sent yesterday...[wss] File and namespace
naming proposal
Paul:
I'm confused about the namespaces and the
filenames.....
do each of the documents have a namespace,
the template that's given ends in <docname>
Chris
I think you are reading too much into "namespace"...are
you asking about schema namespaces? how do you define namespace?
Paul:
something that's defined by the namespaces
spec
Chris
the section on namespaces I interpreted as
URL's ....where Kelvin has "namespace" read it as URL....
Paul is thinking namespace as in schema....
Paul
in the last sentence......that;s what you
usually do for a namespace document
Chris
Paul, how should this be worded....we want
some human readable way to locate the document and schema....
Paul
I was confused by the use of "namespace"....let
me ask..when I look in the xsd and I look at the target namespace what
will I find?
Chris
in the schema, the namespace equals the URI
of the schema
Rob.....
have we reached resolution that we are going
to drop the # sign?
Frederick
we could use a number....reserve a number
Tony
this might not work if there is no scheme
set up for numbering
ACTION: Kelvin to resolve
#169 pending
Chris:
I
thought we resolved this on the last call? yes, and we had unanimous agreement
to go with Hal's proposal
#173 resolved
#190 pending [ based on this meeting....Irving
to write this up]
Chris:
Must
Understand.....Irving was to write up a proposal....
Irving:
I'm
struggling with what the "will of the committee" is.....don't
have a good sense of this
is
it .....if you can parse the schema everything is up to your security model?
Chris
yes
this was pretty much it
Tony
agree
<no dissent>
#196 qualified names instead of URI's
..
Chris,
should
be marked postponed
<end of issues list >
_________________________________
two new issues from Merlin
1) X509 references the ds:X509IssuerSerial
element, but dsig doesn't expose this as a global element
probable to get the team to expose all
these top level elements....I'll post to the dsig list to do this.....should
be ok without changes to X509 spec
2) the STR transform does not
support parameterization...
Chris
at
the last meeting we agreed we would create a new element in the wsse namespace
that has the same type as canonicalization
Rob,
there
were 2 proposals in Merlins mail...that's the first
Merlin:
the
second is slightly more general and clumsy...extend with an algorithm parameter
(ds:transforms can then have any parameters )
Chris,
I'm
inclined to do the tactical....
Merlin,
some
people have issues with our tactical proposal ......not sure its a real
problem
Chris, should we use the second proposal?
ok
we'll take that as pending for the editors to do
________________________________________________________
discussion of the other work we have
to do.....
we need hal for this discussion.....
who sent the XRML scenario?
TJ
I
sent that around.
Chris
has
there been any feedback? will you get another version out?
TJ
yes
by next call
Chris
does
anyone know how stable the SAML one is?
<no response>
Chris
when
we get Ron's update we should consider an interop on that one
Chris
what
about the XRML profile?
Thomas,
no
comments on the profile
Chris,
should
we do a remote interop
Thomas,
yes
worked well last time
Kelvin,
on
current course & speed we have one more (16th) before the last on the
30th.....suggest not meeting on 30th.....
anyone
feel otherwise?
Paul
can
we just slip a week instead of waiting 2?
Kelvin
this
seems to cause problems
_________________________________________________
Any other business?
Don
whats
the plan for closing out 1.0
Chris
plan
is to get the docs out and resolve the issues.....
Kelvin
the
only thing we need is to take a week to review the pending changes......and
then take a vote to submit for final review...takes about 60 days....
I
think in a week and 1/2 we'll have that and we shoud be mostly there
Don,
by
the January meeting are we hoping to have a vote? I'm just trying to push
it
Kelvin,
I'm
all in favor of that....chris what do you think....if we put forward the
call on the 13th of January?
Chris
In
agreement
Kelvin
Any
disagreement? we'll make this the stake in the ground
Paul
could
you send out a short email with that schedule and what the process is?
the vote, etc
Kelvin
will
do
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]