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

RE: Proposed Final Charter and Activity Proposal

From: Shivaram Mysore <Shivaram.Mysore@Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 13:10:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200108272010.NAA00780@single.eng.sun.com>
To: www-xkms-ws@w3.org, pbaker@verisign.com
Cc: djweitzner@w3.org

One possible addition to the text of IPR Disclosure is:

"The XKMS Working Group will develop a Royalty Free (RF) specification as 
defined by the Patent Policy Working Group [link = 
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent/Group/Drafts/WD-PPWG-Framework-20010308.html 
]."

May be Danny can provide more refinement to this section.

/Shivaram


> Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Shivaram Mysore <Shivaram.Mysore@Sun.COM>
> Subject: RE: Proposed Final Charter and Activity Proposal
> To: www-xkms-ws@w3.org, pbaker@verisign.com, Shivaram.Mysore@Sun.COM
> Content-MD5: W9/a0vvQ8HiQXLf8L8tRZQ==
> 
> One more Comment:
> 
> There is no mention of any "Invited Experts" (Invited experts have to meet 
some 
> W3C confidentiality requirements and must also supply IPR statements.)  
> anywhere.  This could be of concern for W3C.
> 
> /Shivaram
> 
> > Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Shivaram Mysore <Shivaram.Mysore@Sun.COM>
> > Subject: RE: Proposed Final Charter and Activity Proposal
> > To: www-xkms-ws@w3.org, pbaker@verisign.com
> > Content-MD5: Yru6WPR74y/Dz7kBlFR1Dw==
> > 
> > 
> > Here are some more comments: 
> > 
> > Activity Proposal:
> > -----------------
> > 
> > 1.  Nowhere in the activity proposal does it actually make the case for why 
a 
> > 	WG should be formed to *continue* work on XKMS.  It gives every
> > 	impression that the work has already been done, and there's nothing 
> > 	left to work on.  At least some attempt should be made to
> > 	describe to-be-designed features.  
> > 	
> > 	The same is also true of the Charter, whose introduction talks about
> > 	what XKMS is, but not about what the WG is supposed to be for.
> > 	
> > 2.  Question "What intellectual property (for example, an 
implementation)..."
> > 	
> > 	In the answer to this, the following statement in the activity proposal
> > 	is only partially true:  "A significant advantage of forming a working
> > 	group is that members of the group who may have filed as yet undeclared
> > 	IP claims would be required to make a formal disclosure, thus clarifying
> > 	the IPR status of the specification."  However, it's in a *good* way! 
> > 	Only participating companies offering RAND terms will be required to
> > 	disclose essential patents.  If you offer RF terms to your IP, then you
> > 	don't have to disclose anything.  (Even if the group has an RF mode,
> > 	participating companies are still allowed to offer RAND terms...)
> > 	
> > 	I think we need to reword this a little bit.
> > 	
> > 3.  Answer to the Q - "Should new groups be created?"
> > 	Assuming that there will be more than one group, without the likely
> > 	scopes of the additional groups described here.  
> > 	
> > 	The same comment goes for scope item #4 in the charter.
> > 	
> > 	Also, the answer is not clear for the following statement - "Is the WG
> > 	only a meta-WG, or will it also produce Recommendation-track XKMS
> > 	drafts?"
> > 
> > 
> > Charter:
> > -------
> > 
> > 1.  The "Declaration of [Submitter]" wording in the charter has no context. 
> > 	- Is this supposed to be what WG members need to fill out?  
> > 	- Is it merely a suggestion?  
> > 	- Is it illustrating the IPR statements that the principal authors of 
> > 	  XKMS have agreed to?  
> > 	  
> > 	Also it covers only *copyrights*, not *patents*; this declaration covers
> > 	only the exact text of a contribution/submission and not patents 
> > 	required for implementation. 
> > 	
> > 2.  Section: Teleconferences:
> > 	Should there be atleast a limited # of regular telecons just to make
> > 	sure that the forum is more open.  The statement "As necessary, the
> > 	Chair may convene teleconferences periodically ..." is not very explicit
> > 	for a W3C style activity.
> > 
> > 3.  Section: Coordination with Other Groups:
> > 	Sub Sec - XML Activity:
> > 		"The XKMS Working Group will be represented in the XML
> > 		Coordination Group to coordinate with other activities
> > 		represented in this group. "
> > 		
> > 		Seems to me that there is no rationale for this statement.
> > 		Note the word "WILL" !  Also, as Joseph pointed out in the
> > 		email:
> > 	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xkms-ws/2001Aug/0029.html
> > 		"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 think, using the word "may" could be better.  Also, it could 
> > 		say:
> > 		"Optionally, XKMS will closely track the XML Coordination Group
> > 		and coordinate with other activities as and when required"
> > 
> > 
> > /Shivaram
> > 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________________________________________
Shivaram H. Mysore

Software Engineer 				shivaram.mysore@eng.sun.com
Java Card Engineering				(408) 343-1653 (or x51653)
JavaSoft, Sun Microsystems Inc.			(408) 517-5460 - FAX
http://java.sun.com/people/shivaram 		http://mysore.eng/

Other Email(s) - shivaram.mysore@ieee.org, shivaram.mysore@computer.org
PGP Key fingerprint =  86 C3 94 A6 20 70 FE C9  D6 F4 C2 7D 15 4B 6A CB
_______________________________________________________________________________
Received on Monday, 27 August 2001 16:10:20 EDT

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