Re: [wss] XrML virtual interop completed

[Anthony Nadalin <drsecure@us.ibm.com>]

What has prompted this mail, I did not see one like this for the other profiles. Have you read the IP statement that was posted to the list by ContentGuard ?

Anthony Nadalin | work 512.838.0085 | cell 512.289.4122
James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>

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

05/19/2004 04:52 PM

To	vijayg@microsoft.com, wss@lists.oasis-open.org
cc	Kelvin Lawrence/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, ckaler@microsoft.com, karl.best@oasis-open.org
Subject	Re: [wss] XrML virtual interop completed

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  


To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wss/members/leave_workgroup.php.