W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms-ws@w3.org > August 2001

RE: Proposed Activity Proposal, Charter

From: Blair Dillaway <blaird@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 14:04:36 -0700
Message-ID: <AA19CFCE90F52E4B942B27D42349637902CAC13F@red-msg-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>, <www-xkms-ws@w3.org>
Here are comments on the draft activity proposal and charter docs. 

ACTIVITY PROPOSAL

1. Should the title be "XML Key Management Working Group Proposal" since
we're only contemplating an activity with a single WG.

2. We should add URLS/Refs for the XKMS Note, PKIX, XML-P, etc. when
these terms are first introduced.

CHARTER

1. Shouldn't the title should be "XML Key Management Working Group
Charter". 

2. We should add URLS/Refs for the XKMS Note, XML Sig, X.509/PKIX, etc.
when these terms are first introduced.

3. Mission Statement: Change "simple client' to 'client'.  Simple is a
relative term and isn't well defined.

4. Scope: "The core scope of this activity" should probably be "The core
scope of this Working Group". 

5. Scope: 
	- I'd still like to see the non-normative doc on use in WAP
dropped, but its not critical if others want to pursue this.
	- I don't believe a WG can "Redefine its charter".  How about -
"Propose a new/revised charter for approval by the AC".  

6. Requirements: Limiting implementations to 'mandatory portions'
doesn't seem right.  Doesn't the W3C require implementation of all
REQUIRED and RECOMMENDED features?

7. Deliverables: On bullet 7 can we say 'draft charters for further
work'.

8. Duration and Milestones: 
	-A question for Joeseph/Danny - is the Oct F2F reasonable given
the 8 week notification requirement?
	- don't believe requirements documents have a 'Last Call'. 
	- The WG should probably exist for some fixed time beyond
Recommendation in order to deal with errata.  Also, can we drop the July
2002 're-charter' since at most the WG can propose a new charter.

9. W3C Activities: 
	-Should fix up the indentations.  XML Signature, XML Encryption,
and XML-P aren't part of the XML Activity.
	- Under XML Schema it says "The serialization functionality
developed by the XML Protocol WG will be based on XML Schema".  This
doesn't belong here and, in any event, doesn't seem relevant.
	- Is the description of ebXML correct, seems to pre-date the
movement of the work to OASIS? 
	- missing URLS for the last 3 groups

10. IPR Disclosure: In the last paragaph,the "principal authors of the
XKMS protocol" need to be identified somewhere.  Maybe a ref to the XKMS
Note?  But, I suggest we just strike this last  paragraph and just
include the basic language proposing royalty free licensing.  If we
reference an MOU then we probably need to make it available which seems
like more trouble then its worth.

11. W3C Team commitment: Per our discussions, I thought the W3C staff
indicated they didn't want to co-chair or edit. So why the parenthetical
note?  Maybe Joeseph or Danny can suggest text more explicitly defining
their role?

-----Original Message-----
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:pbaker@verisign.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 11:20 AM
To: www-xkms-ws@w3.org
Subject: Proposed Activity Proposal, Charter


All,

	Attached are the proposed activity proposal and charter. Please:

   1) Review and comment to this list.

   2)	Inform your AC representatives that the submission is to be made
soon
	and that their support will be asked for. (tell them to vote in
favor)

		Phill


Phillip Hallam-Baker FBCS C.Eng.
Principal Scientist
VeriSign Inc.
pbaker@verisign.com
781 245 6996 x227
Received on Friday, 17 August 2001 17:05:08 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 13:51:38 EDT