RE: Proposed Activity Proposal, Charter

Then the charter would need a major rework to indicate the WG will
create a 1.2 std, collect requirements, and then produce an x.y std with
all the associated deliverables.  I don't believe the W3C lets a group
redefine its charter on the fly to add new scope/deliverables.

I still prefer we stick with the general schedule currently proposed.

-----Original Message-----
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:pbaker@verisign.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 12:55 PM
To: Blair Dillaway; stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie; Ford, Warwick
Cc: www-xkms-ws@w3.org
Subject: RE: Proposed Activity Proposal, Charter


I don't think that we are 'not open' to new requirements at any time, we
just want to complete 1.2 before making major changes to the spec to
support them.

If there are no significant new requirements then we just do 1.2 and
close. Otherwise we produce an extended requirements document and add
milestones to the charter for delivery of an x.y where (x>1 /\ y > 2).

I suspect that the extended requirements will be of the form 'give us a
comprehensive security architecture for Web Services'.

		Phill


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


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Blair Dillaway [mailto:blaird@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 11:52 AM
> To: stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie; Ford, Warwick
> Cc: www-xkms-ws@w3.org
> Subject: 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
> route.
> 
> Blair
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie]
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 2:55 AM
> To: Ford, Warwick
> Cc: www-xkms-ws@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed Activity Proposal, Charter
> 
> 
> 
> Warwick,
> 
> 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 
> functionality?
> 
> Stephen.
> 
> "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 [mailto:pbaker@verisign.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 11:20 AM
> > > To: www-xkms-ws@w3.org
> > > 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.
> > > pbaker@verisign.com
> > > 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.                mailto:stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie
> Ireland                             http://www.baltimore.com
>

Received on Friday, 17 August 2001 16:07:23 UTC