[xacml] Proposed Agenda February 6 Concall. QUORUM REQUIRED...

[Carlisle Adams <carlisle.adams@entrust.com>]

Title: Proposed Agenda February 6 Concall. QUORUM REQUIRED...

Date: Thursday, February 6, 2003
Time: 10:00 AM EST
Tel: 512-225-3050 Access Code: 65998

Proposed Agenda:
10:00-10:05 Roll Call and Agenda Review
10:05-10:15 Vote to accept minutes of December 5, December 12, January 9, and January 23 concalls
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200301/msg00003.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200212/msg00091.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200301/msg00007.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/200301/msg00019.html
10:15-10:25 Discussion of ISTPA and possible collaboration with XACML (Michael Willett)
10:25-10:35 Discussion AND VOTE regarding what to do with negative ballot on XACML (Carlisle) **
10:35-10:55 Discussion of errata list and Tim's OS 1.0 specification (Simon, Tim)
10:55-11:00 Discussion of next steps for XACML:  nothing?  1.1?  2.0?  (Carlisle)

Carlisle.

** One OASIS member organization cast a negative ballot on XACML 1.0.  The reason given in the ballot was "We think, OASIS standards must be royalty free."  It seems to me that we have three possible options for a TC response:

1) Dismiss the comment on the basis that the TC has already done its best with respect to this issue:

An implementation of any standard, in some particular way, may infringe on some intellectual property, whether that IP has been disclosed to OASIS or not.  Each implementation must take appropriate steps to determine whether or not it infringes on valid IP claims.

The XACML TC has taken reasonable steps to ensure and to document that all features of this language are derived from previous work in the field that is not under patent restrictions.  We intentionally made one feature of the language - Obligations - not mandatory to implement in order to make it easier for implementations to avoid a particular feature that might, in some cases, infringe on a known IP claim.

It is the belief of the TC that broad, vague statements of IP claims should not be allowed to block progress of a specification where there is no evidence that those claims apply to typical implementations of the specification.  The TC therefore requests that OASIS adopt the XACML 1.0 specification as submitted.

2) Dismiss the comment on the basis that it is impossible and unnecessary to satisfy the comment:

With respect to the negative vote cast, the XACML TC feels that it must dismiss the comment because
(a) no specification can ever guarantee that it is royalty free (since someone can always show up a month from now claiming some just-issued IP that relates to any specification under consideration), and

(b) current OASIS policy (to which we, as members, must all adhere) does not require, or even encourage, royalty-free specifications.

The TC therefore requests that OASIS adopt the XACML 1.0 specification as submitted.

3) Agree that OASIS Standards should be royalty free and withdraw XACML from consideration as an OASIS Standard.  [This one is undesirable to me because it implies that XACML cannot be implemented in a way that is free of royalties, but no one has ever claimed that this is the case.]