- From: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:51:09 -0400
- To: ext Nick Allott <nick.allott@omtp.org>
- Cc: "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
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] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Apr/ 0000.html>
Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2009 11:52:02 UTC