Re: [xacml] minutes from Sept 18 2003 meeting

[Steve Hanna <steve.hanna@sun.com>]

I'm sure that these minutes are a correct description
of what happened at the meeting, but I'd like to
correct a statement that was made there.

> Hal started by addressing some administrative issues:
> 
>  1. Called the group's attention to the new TC process which
>     has been approved. Of particular interest is the 20%
>     requirement for standard approval (SAML 1.1 barely got 10%).
>     Also, the attestation rules were changed so parties must
>     be satisfied with IPR.

I'm pretty sure that the recent changes to the TC process
didn't affect the attestation rules. The relevant passage
is Section 3 (b) 4, which says the chair must submit

  Certification by at least three OASIS member organizations
  that they are successfully using the specification
  consistently with the OASIS IPR Policy;

This text hasn't changed in years. And neither has the
Intellectual Property Rights policy, which says in section
OASIS.IPR.3.2.(A):

  Where implementations are required before advancement of a  
specification, only implementations that have, by statement
  of the implementors, taken adequate steps to comply with any
  such rights, or claimed rights, shall be considered for the
  purpose of showing the adequacy of the specification.

The XACML TC chose to not require implementation for
certifications of successful use. Therefore, those
who certify are not required to state that their
implementors have "taken adequate steps to comply with
any such rights, or claimed rights".

I am not speaking on behalf of Sun here or making any
statement about what Sun has or has not done. I'm just
saying that from what I can see the OASIS attestation
rules have not changed in more than a year. If Hal can
show me otherwise, I would greatly appreciate it. Really!

Thanks,

Steve Hanna

S/MIME Cryptographic Signature