RE: [wss] Minutes 12-Jul-2005

["Chris Kaler" <ckaler@microsoft.com>]

Thanks for getting these out quickly...

Two things: (1) you hint that we took Dwayne's motion, but we should
probably state that we approved the minutes without objection pending
the updates.

Also, I did not make the IPR classification statement about the new TC,
it was either Tony or Paul.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Hodges [mailto:Jeff.Hodges@neustar.biz] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 9:47 AM
To: OASIS wsstc
Subject: [wss] Minutes 12-Jul-2005

Minutes for WSSTC concall tue 7/12/2005


roll call -- have quorum


[detailed Attendance Info to follow anon.]


chairs: defer approving Minutes June 28 2005 concall until next call
then... dwayne nichols: approve minutes with caveat that there's
comments 
pending on them


ChrisKaler(ck): have agenda item on next call that there's item to
approve 
minutes update (to minutes of 28-Jun-2005 concall) on next call


 > 3. Issue list review & document status


there are 4 issues

pending ones (2)..

   389 - id clash

ck: did that one get fixed-up?
TonyNadalin(tn): nope
ck: can we spin-up a non-CD doc that has these changes in it?
tn: yes
ck: will update the action item appropriately



   393 contributor's list

[hans grangvist to add info to "contributors list" that he's going to
send to 
the mailing list]
ck: then leave this pending


   394 --- Ron Monzillo's issue with SAML IOP doc

RonMonzillo(rm): can't take on making edits right now
ck: who can help with this?
rm: can we get source doc from Rich Levinson? is it in the repository?
?: do we have volunteer to edit?
Abbie Barbir, nortel: if he (rich) doesn't then I will


  issue 399 from Thomas DeMartini

   [msg 133 frm june in archives, see below]

ck: thomas, can you explain?
ThomasDeMartini(td): issue of diff id's, and all, proposed fairly
lengthly 
chunk of text to address this, with options -- so it seemed on the email
list 
that there was consensus to make this change and to pick option #1, and
I sent 
a summary email to that effect to the list
ck: any objections to just making the change?

ck reads message thomas is referring to..

New Issue: (was RE: [wss] Issue 399: Proposed Security Consideration
Text)
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200506/msg00133.html

.. RM nominally agrees to the change, overall silence when ck asks for
any 
objections to just make the change?

MikeMcIntosh(mm): this is change that doesn't hurt, so is ok with the
change?


ck: any objecttions to just making the change?

ck: hearing no obj, we'll adopt change #1 in the above ref'd msg, and
editor is 
directed to make the change






 >  4. Interop status for 1.1

gudge(mg): 2 parties have responded to the inquiry for virt v1.1 IOP
during 
pubreview (which is now 60 days)

mg: iop scenarios are done.

ck: have 3 companies that are ready to go (ibm, msft, ?) -- who was 3d?

mg: scott larson (layer 3)

KelvinLawrence(kl): any other companies can step up? this is not "public
iop" 
-- this is for helping the spec, is a private event amongst TC members





 > 5. Other Business

tn: ibm will announce at catalyst that ibm & msft & partners will
announce the 
ws-securitypolicy, ws-trust, ws-secureconversation

will go into oasis tc under new ipr rules into a new TC forming in Sept
2005


FrederickHirsch(fh): which ipr rules?

ck: rf w/rand

PaulCotton(pc)/tn: we'll be repub ws-securitypolicy tomorrow too on all 
partners websites


---

kl: note that public comments from pub review of specs will occur on the
TC's 
"public review" mailing list, and TC members should please keep an eye
on it 
for such feedback: wss-comment@lists.oasis-open.org


---

adjourn





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php