RE: [wss] New Profiles

[Don Flinn <flinn@alum.mit.edu>]

Good point.  My thought was that the TC members might want some say over
profiles that would be written for WSS and the only way that would be
feasible would be if new profiles were from OASIS TCs.  If the TC
members feel that such a say is not necessary or appropriate, then your
amendment is apt.  

I suppose that we could rely on the WS-I to assure interoperability for
new profiles.  Another thought is that we could publish a template that
new profiles would follow. (Although this is additional work that I'm
not sure this TC would want to take on.)  Over time we have developed
constraints and direction for the profiles that we have developed, but
we have never put them in a coherent document.

Don

On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 11:51 -0700, DeMartini, Thomas wrote:
> Is your intent with this motion to prohibit other standards
> organizations from defining profiles?
> 
> I think saying all token profiles have to be standardized in OASIS would
> be like W3C saying all soap headers have to be standardized in W3C.
> 
> I don't have any problems with us officially shutting the door on the
> work this TC will perform, but I don't think we should shut the door on
> the work other people outside OASIS will perform.
> 
> Accordingly, I suggest amending the motion to
> "Any additional profiles other than those currently contained within the
> 1.0 and 1.1 WSS specification be developed external to the WSS TC."
> or
> "The WSS TC will not develop any new profiles beyond those contained
> within 1.0 and the current draft of 1.1."
> 
> &Thomas.
> 
> ] -----Original Message-----
> ] From: Don Flinn [mailto:flinn@alum.mit.edu]
> ] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 10:23 AM
> ] To: wss@lists.oasis-open.org
> ] Subject: [wss] New Profiles
> ] 
> ] When we wisely decided that tokens would be specified by separate
> ] documents we did not, unwisely :-), explicitly determine whether new
> ] profiles would be developed under this TC or under a new TC.  The
> ] OTP-Token is one of probably many additional new token profiles.  I
> ] would like to propose, for discussion, the following motion:
> ] 
> ] "Any additional profiles other than those currently contained within
> the
> ] 1.0 and 1.1 WSS specification be developed within an OASIS TC other
> than
> ] the existing WSS TC."
> ] 
> ] I realize that this is a larger issue than that of the OTP-Token
> ] proposal, but closing this hole will, as a side effect, resolve the
> ] OTP-Token issue.
> ] 
> ] However, this raises another issue.  Who or what controls what new
> ] profiles will be incorporated into the WSS protocol?  Should the WSS
> TC
> ] have approval of any new profiles developed by the new TCs or should
> any
> ] profile that gains OASIS status be accepted as a legitimate WSS
> profile.
> ] Since any OASIS member, including WSS TC members, may vote, raise
> issues
> ] and comment on the acceptance of new profiles, I believe that this
> would
> ] be sufficient oversight.
> ] 
> ] Don
> ] 
> ] 
> ] --
> ] Don Flinn, President
> ] Flint Security LLC
> ] Tel: 781-856-7230
> ] FAX: 781-631-7693
> ] email: flinn@alum.mit.edu
> ] http://www.flintsecurity.com
> ] 
> ] 
> ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ] 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
> 
>