Re: [wss] XrML virtual interop completed

[James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>]

At 04:34 AM 5/18/2004, Vijay Gajjala wrote:
>Three companies (ContentGuard, IBM, Microsoft) participated in a virtual
>interop from 05/10/04-05/17/04 on the following specifications:
>a. OASIS core SOAP message security specification: * * *
>b. XrML token profile: * * *
>c. XrML Interop scenarios document: * * *
>All three companies passed all the interop scenarios.  * * *

     Good morning all.  It looks like the work on XrML is proceeding with 
some technical success.  I also saw a separate message about a ballot 
launched to advance the WS-Security profile/module for XrML to WS-Security 
TC Committee Draft status.  I have a couple of administrative questions and 
comments.

    1.  We were advised some time ago that "XrML" is a trademarked 
term.  (See http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/rights/ipr.php.) Have IP 
clearances been obtained for its use?  I will inquire with ContentGuard 
directly.  Please note that Section 3(a) of the current OASIS TC Policy 
says:  "The name of a Committee Draft may not include any trademarks or 
service marks not owned by OASIS."  I will follow up with the TC chairs on 
how to handle this.

     Second:   As a work, of course, the XrML spec may be subject to other 
claims of IP rights.  See 
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/wss/ipr.php.  Members who are 
participating in this project, please remember the applicability of the 
OASIS IPR Policy, which makes each member responsible for certain 
obligations and disclosures of known interests.  We are assuming that each 
of you has addressed this.  As always, please free to contact us if you 
have any questions.

     Finally, as you may know, the issue of incorporating use of a 
nonsubmitted proprietary work into approved specifications from official 
standards bodies has been an active one lately.  At OASIS, I understand 
that our Board is considering some further guidance in this area.  However, 
for the time being, I can share some merely advisory comments.
     a.  I do not believe the OASIS rules address this at present, although 
I'm not the last word on that.  Regardless, TCs are free to decide, in 
their normal voting process, what should and should not be included in 
specs produced by the TC.
     b.  There is some concern that a spec reader will mistakenly assume 
that an incorporated private work is "part of" or subject to the same 
rules, sanctions and safety that the OASIS work itself carries.  We need to 
make sure that we are encouraging users to respect all IP rights, not just 
those that have been subjected to the OASIS process.  It's possible that 
OASIS will develop some standard rules or practices to address this 
risk.  For now, though, in any  finalized specs which reference 
nonsubmitted proprietary works, we need to give some thought to how to make 
things adequately clear to a reader, so that they don't assume that the 
OASIS rules (or any SDO rules) apply to everything that's referenced in an 
OASIS document.
     Best regards  Jamie

~   James Bryce Clark
~   Manager, Technical Standards Development, OASIS
~   http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.shtml
~   +1 978 667 5115 x 203 central office
~   +1 310 293 6739 direct