RE: [wss] XrML virtual interop completed

["DeMartini, Thomas" <Thomas.DeMartini@CONTENTGUARD.COM>]

Jamie,

Let me respond to each of your three topics:

1. After discussion with the chairs and other editors, I have uploaded
revision 7 of the XrML Token Profile that is now renamed as the Rights
Expression Language (REL) Token Profile.  Can you please confirm that
this complies with the section of OASIS TC Policy that you cited?

2. As you point out, a number of companies have submitted statements
available at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/wss/ipr.php.  Like
you, I also am assuming that all members have addressed the OASIS IPR
Policy.  If you have reason to believe that this is not the case (i.e.
you know of someone who hasn't), perhaps you can contact them
specifically to remind them?

3. I'm not sure I understand why the XrML Token Profile was singled out
as the target of your last comment about proprietary specifications,
given that you say this is common practice.  I also disagree that the
XrML Token Profile was written in such a way as to be misunderstood in
terms of what is being standardized.  Standards bodies have been
successfully issuing standards for years that utilize -- but do not
sanction -- proprietary specifications.  Nevertheless, in light of the
name change discussed above in bullet 1, we figured it most agreeable to
drop the references to XrML, leaving only the reference to the
International Standard Rights Expression Language, ISO/IEC 21000-5.
This way, the WSS REL Token Profile normatively creates a profile for
ISO/IEC 21000-5 as it always did.  It is this language that was used in
the most recent interop and was the recommended language in revision 6
of the REL Token Profile.  It is now the sole language in revision 7 of
the REL Token Profile (the references to the two proprietary XrML
specifications were removed).

&Thomas.

-----Original Message-----
From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:jamie.clark@oasis-open.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 2:52 PM
To: vijayg@microsoft.com; wss@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: klawrenc@us.ibm.com; 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.