Re: Proposal for new WG to specify "Concrete APIs"

Hi Nick,

On Apr 27, 2009, at 8:51 AM, ext Nick Allott wrote:

> 2) Charter: this initial input looks good  - a few early comments:
> a) Do we have to be tighter on scope of APIs? The charter presumably
> helps form part of the practical sandbox for RF commitments. Given the
> issues with Geolocation, I would have anticipated that this may be an
> issue, upon which we need clarity. (To be clear I think here I would
> personally advocate wide rather than narrow scope, but important that
> this is raised.)

If your question is effectively "does the Charter need to explicitly  
enumerate all of the APIs in scope for the WG?", then yes, I see this  
as a mandatory requirement and I would expect some Consortium Members  
to object to an open-ended Charter.

If OMTP and/or its Members want to add to the list we proposed, then  
I think all we need at this stage is a short one-line description of  
the API and an associated input (file) so we can all get a reasonable  
understanding of the APIs scope.

Given the related work BONDI has already done, I would think that  
creating these "associated inputs" would be trivial i.e. just cut and  
paste the latest-and-greatest version of each API into a separate  
ASCII file.

> b) Should policy description and APIs be in the same charter. There  
> are
> arguments both sides, and as we discussed briefly in Boston, I am
> sympathetic to the Nokia position. It is critical however, that if  
> they
> are, under the same charter that the security element be identified  
> as a
> distinct deliverable, with potentially different timelines. I will  
> raise
> this issue internally and try to get a formal OMTP consensus  
> position on
> this issue (ie separate security charter vs APIs). We also have some
> ongoing conversations with W3C staff on this same issue that we  
> hope to
> resolve shortly.

I think Thomas Roessler set the tone here regarding one or more WGs  
by explicitly excluding device service APIs from what I'll call his  
"Security Policy WG" proposal [1].

The most important thing is for the work to begin in an open and  
transparent forum as soon as possible. I am mostly indifferent about  
one versus two WGs and will tend to favor the solution that expedites  
starting the work.

> 3) Contribution and editor resources. Similarly, we can offer the  
> editor
> and strong
> support on the resourcing sides should this go forward. We will report
> back on the detail (names) soon.

Good to hear.

-Regards, Art Barstow

[1] < 

Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2009 11:52:02 UTC