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

RE: Proposed Activity Proposal, Charter

From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker@verisign.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 10:50:16 -0700
Message-ID: <2F3EC696EAEED311BB2D009027C3F4F405869706@vhqpostal.verisign.com>
To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>, "'Blair Dillaway'" <blaird@microsoft.com>, "'www-xkms-ws@w3.org'" <www-xkms-ws@w3.org>

This time with the *new* versions



Phillip Hallam-Baker FBCS C.Eng.
Principal Scientist
VeriSign Inc.
pbaker@verisign.com
781 245 6996 x227


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip 
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 1:43 PM
> To: 'Blair Dillaway'; Hallam-Baker, Phillip; www-xkms-ws@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed Activity Proposal, Charter
> 
> 
> 
> Did all of these (plus Rich's points) bar the following:
> 
> 1) Simple client
> 	It may be relative and subjective, however it is 
> important. A 6Mb client implementation doees not achieve what 
> we need/want.
> 
> 	The W3C mission statement is also subjective 'To ensure 
> that the Web fulfills its full potential', however people 
> seem to like it, although the PR merchants seem to have 
> reworded my original proposal somewhat the term 'full 
> potential' is still undefined.
> 
> 2) WAP Document
> 	Dropped since the document will probably be sent to WAP 
> anyway and if it does not the wording does not prevent the 
> group accepting one.
> 
> 3) Requirements Mandaroty etc.
> 	I took this straight from XML-ENC, 
> 
> 4) Timetable,
> 	Not done pending a new proposal
> 
> 5) IPR, anyone want to propose text?
> 
> 
> 
> 		Phill
> 
> Phillip Hallam-Baker FBCS C.Eng.
> Principal Scientist
> VeriSign Inc.
> pbaker@verisign.com
> 781 245 6996 x227
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Blair Dillaway [mailto:blaird@microsoft.com]
> > Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 5:05 PM
> > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; www-xkms-ws@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Proposed Activity Proposal, Charter
> > 
> > 
> > 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 Monday, 20 August 2001 13:52:38 EDT

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