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

RE: Proposed Activity Proposal, Charter

From: Shivaram Mysore <Shivaram.Mysore@Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 11:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200108201817.LAA24485@single.eng.sun.com>
To: www-xkms-ws@w3.org, pbaker@verisign.com
In the Activity proposal,

>>>>
What intellectual property (for example, an implementation) must be available 
for licensing and is this intellectual property available for a reasonable fee 
and in a non-discriminatory manner? 
	No IPR is known to be needed for creating an XML Key Management 
Specification implementation or for applying XML Signature or XML Encryption to 
XML Protocol  messages. 
<<<<<<<<

Both IBM and MS have declared RAND IPR for the SOAP-SEC [1] specification which 
would seem to be counter to the above statement that "No IPR is known... for 
applying XML Signature ... to XML Protocol messages."

Looks like current IPR statement for the XKMS Note is fuzzy w/r/t whether the 
terms are RF or RAND.        


/Shivaram
        
                
> Resent-Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 13:52:41 -0400 (EDT)
> Resent-Message-Id: <200108201752.NAA05958@www19.w3.org>
> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
> To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>, "'Blair Dillaway'" 
<blaird@microsoft.com>, "'www-xkms-ws@w3.org'" <www-xkms-ws@w3.org>
> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 10:50:16 -0700
> Subject: RE: Proposed Activity Proposal, Charter
> Resent-From: www-xkms-ws@w3.org
> X-Mailing-List: <www-xkms-ws@w3.org> archive/latest/47
> X-Loop: www-xkms-ws@w3.org
> Resent-Sender: www-xkms-ws-request@w3.org
> List-Id: <www-xkms-ws.w3.org>
> List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:www-xkms-ws-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> 
> 
> 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 14:17:53 EDT

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