RE: Proposed Activity Proposal, Charter

I'll admit I'm torn between the desire to push out a useful spec quickly
and taking enough time to make sure we didn't miss some high value
improvement to the 1.1 draft.  The current draft charter favors the
latter criteria and it's the one I prefer.  If the group decides to
prioritize on the first, and set dates as Warwick suggests, there is an
obvious disconnect with the desire for coordination with other groups.  

If folks are comfortable with the change, then we'd need to do as
Stephen suggests and clearly indicate the requirements are known and
we're not open to changes.  If we go this route, then the coordination
section would need to be totally revised eliminating statements
concerning requirements input and language concerning liaison with
"external groups".  Simply presenting external groups with a spec we
consider final does not constitute useful coordination.  Also, I expect
we'll get a lot of negative feedback during AC review if we go this


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Farrell [] 
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 2:55 AM
To: Ford, Warwick
Subject: Re: Proposed Activity Proposal, Charter


I agree with the timing you suggest for xkms and xbulk, but I think 
the requirements document is getting weird - hard to see how it can 
really be requirements for xkms when that document's already done 
before draft one of the requirements document issues.

Maybe it'd be ok to change the timing as you suggest if we also change 
the deliverable to "A W3C Note documenting the criteria and requirements

used in the design of XKMS" or somesuch so that its clear that its just 
a historical note and isn't intended to open up chances to add new 


"Ford, Warwick" wrote:
> Can we make a change to the "Duration and Schedule" section to better 
> reflect the strong concensus as to priorities evident at the Workshop?
> The agreed plan was to proceed at highest priority with a revised 
> draft for XKMS that corrected known bugs, removed ambiguities, and 
> incorporated some minor improvements.  The writing of a requirements 
> document is NOT to be considered part of the path to accomplishing 
> that.  The idea of the requirements document is to document, for 
> editorial purposes, the requirements that XKMS addresses and identify 
> requirements that XKMS can satisfy.
> To avoid confusion on the part of newcomers on this point (and to 
> reflect the Workshop concensus), I propose we set the last call date 
> for the XKMS protocol spec at November 2001, and that for the 
> requirements document at January 2002.  I also suggest putting X-Bulk 
> at January 2002 (again reflecting the Workshop concensus).  If the 
> requirements document and X-Bulk are completed earlier, that is fine, 
> but it is important to make it clear that progression of the XKMS spec

> proper is not contingent on either.
> Warwick
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip []
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 11:20 AM
> > To:
> > 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.
> >
> > 781 245 6996 x227
> >
> >

Stephen Farrell         				   
Baltimore Technologies,   tel: (direct line) +353 1 881 6716
39 Parkgate Street,                     fax: +353 1 881 7000
Dublin 8.      

Received on Friday, 17 August 2001 11:52:59 UTC