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 13:00:39 -0700
Message-ID: <2F3EC696EAEED311BB2D009027C3F4F40586970B@vhqpostal.verisign.com>
To: "'Joseph Reagle'" <reagle@w3.org>, Blair Dillaway <blaird@microsoft.com>, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
Cc: www-xkms-ws@w3.org
On the OPTIONAL issue:

I really think we want to take that out and just state Required and
Recomended. There is a good reasdon in Encryption to say 'only allow it if
it is supported today', however XKMS supports systems like SPKI and PGP that
have a well defined interface and (at least for PGP) a user community and
are included only because we build on XML Signature.

		Phill

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


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Reagle [mailto:reagle@w3.org]
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 3:14 PM
> To: Blair Dillaway; Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> Cc: www-xkms-ws@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed Activity Proposal, Charter
> 
> 
> On Friday 17 August 2001 17:04, Blair Dillaway wrote:
> > 6. Requirements: Limiting implementations to 'mandatory portions'
> > doesn't seem right.  Doesn't the W3C require implementation of all
> > REQUIRED and RECOMMENDED features?
> 
> Correct, and I've now fixed the Encryption charter to read, 
> "All required, 
> recommended, and optional features ..."
> 
> > 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'.
> 
> It's still a useful milestone because I typically don't push 
> a requirements 
> document beyond Last Call and asking "does everyone agree 
> these are our 
> requirements?" is still an important feature.
> 
> > 10. IPR Disclosure: In the last paragraph,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.
> 
> I think we're going to have to go to the trouble. In the 
> submission [1], some 
> of the submitters made it clear that derivative works were 
> permitted and that 
> any patents would be available RF (royalty free), others were 
> less clear 
> about derivative works and stated a RAND (reasonable and 
> non-discriminatory) 
> license would be available. This is fine for a NOTE, but not for a 
> deliverable of a WG.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2001/08/
> 
> The quickie breakdown is:
> 
> A. Permits derivative works and grants Royalty Free license 
> for patents:
> Microsoft Corporation, VeriSign Inc., webMethods Inc., 
> Citigroup, Reuters 
> Limited.
> 
> B. Unstated terms for derivative works and RAND License for patents:
> Baltimore Technologies, Hewlett-Packard Company, 
> International Business 
> Machines Corporation, IONA Technologies, PureEdge
> 
> So clarifying the right of the W3C to make a derivative work 
> treated solely 
> under the W3C license is fairly easy, I wrote boiler-plate 
> [2] for that for 
> the SOAP submission that I'd have to get the companies in 
> class B to agree 
> to. The patent issue is a tough nut to crack and is currently 
> the critical 
> path issue for a number of new activities at the W3C. If you 
> already have a 
> MOU, that's very convenient because this issue would probably 
> be the biggest 
> source of delay in starting the activity.
> 
> > 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?
> 
> "The W3C Team will dedicate 20% of a single person to this 
> activity for 
> active WG participation and the Staff Contact role: liasoning 
> with other 
> Staff Contacts of identified WGs, and advising the Chair and 
> WG on W3C 
> Process and Publishing."
> 
> Finally, I don't expect the XKMS to have representation on 
> XML CG. They're 
> kind of stingy with that (they like to keep it small) and 
> invite folks with 
> mutual bi-directional dependencies: xmldsig nor xenc have 
> been members. I'd 
> expect the list name would be www-xkms@w3.org (folks are 
> trying to make our 
> conventions for list names between public/member more 
> consistent) and the URI 
> of the activity would be http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS (like 
> Encryption had to 
> do).
> 
> 
> [2] Declaration of [Submitter]
>  
>     [Submitter] hereby grants to the W3C, a perpetual, nonexclusive,
>     royalty-free, world-wide right and license under any [Submitter]
>     copyrights in this contribution to copy, publish and 
> distribute the
>     contribution, as well as a right and license of the same 
> scope to any
>     derivative works prepared by the W3C and based on, or 
> incorporating all
>     or part of the contribution. [Submitter] further agrees that any
>     derivative works of this contribution prepared by the W3C shall be
>     solely owned by the W3C.
> 



Received on Monday, 20 August 2001 16:02:28 EDT

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