RE: Proposed Activity Proposal, Charter

Here are some more comments on the proposal:

 section 1: We mention "the XML architectural approach"? Is there a doc
        you can hyperlink to?  I think we need to be little more specific.

  section 2, PKI: typo: "subtly" -> "subtleties"

  section 3, 6th question: "... XML based Trust Services are the only
        acceptable technology as yet proposed" is a bit opinionated with
        no rationale. The PKIX DPV/DPD protocols are another technology
        that is attempting to solve part of this problem.
        
        Though we talk about PKIX in the earlier paragraph, the sentence is a
        little rough.
        
        I would put it as "XML based Trust Services is becoming more acceptable
        technology as yet proposed".


/Shivaram

> Resent-Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 15:48:50 -0400 (EDT)
> Resent-Message-Id: <200108201948.PAA11167@www19.w3.org>
> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
> To: "'Joseph Reagle'" <reagle@w3.org>, Blair Dillaway <blaird@microsoft.com>, 
"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
> Cc: www-xkms-ws@w3.org
> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 12:46:58 -0700
> Subject: RE: Proposed Activity Proposal, Charter
> Resent-From: www-xkms-ws@w3.org
> X-Mailing-List: <www-xkms-ws@w3.org> archive/latest/50
> X-Loop: www-xkms-ws@w3.org
> Resent-Sender: www-xkms-ws-request@w3.org
> List-Id: <www-xkms-ws.w3.org>
> List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:www-xkms-ws-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> 
> 
> > Correct, and I've now fixed the Encryption charter to read, 
> > "All required, 
> > recommended, and optional features ..."
> 
> OK, changed.
> 
> One nit though, does this mean that if we say 'support for SPKI is optional'
> then someone has to do it. 
> 
> 
> 
> > I think we're going to have to go to the trouble. In the 
> > submission [1], some 
> > of the submitters made it clear that derivative works were 
> > permitted and that 
> > any patents would be available RF (royalty free), others were 
> > less clear 
> > about derivative works and stated a RAND (reasonable and 
> > non-discriminatory) 
> > license would be available. This is fine for a NOTE, but not for a 
> > deliverable of a WG.
> 
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2001/08/
> > 
> > The quickie breakdown is:
> > 
> > A. Permits derivative works and grants Royalty Free license 
> > for patents:
> > Microsoft Corporation, VeriSign Inc., webMethods Inc., 
> > Citigroup, Reuters 
> > Limited.
> > 
> > B. Unstated terms for derivative works and RAND License for patents:
> > Baltimore Technologies, Hewlett-Packard Company, 
> > International Business 
> > Machines Corporation, IONA Technologies, PureEdge
> 
> The significant point here is that the invention was by VeriSign,
> Microsoft, webMethods and Citigroup. The only other company directly
> involved in the design stage was nanobiz which VRSN has now bought.
> 
> Baltimore, IBM, HP etc wanted to support the proposal but the
> overhead of checking their IPR is high and would not have been
> completed in time for the Note submission.
> 
> I have no problems putting an RF statement in the charter, but
> I am not going to draft it. Does the W3C have an RF statement
> from elsewhere that we can plug in?
> 
> 
> > So clarifying the right of the W3C to make a derivative work 
> > treated solely 
> > under the W3C license is fairly easy, I wrote boiler-plate 
> > [2] for that for 
> > the SOAP submission that I'd have to get the companies in 
> > class B to agree 
> > to. The patent issue is a tough nut to crack and is currently 
> > the critical 
> > path issue for a number of new activities at the W3C. If you 
> > already have a 
> > MOU, that's very convenient because this issue would probably 
> > be the biggest 
> > source of delay in starting the activity.
> > 
> > > 11. W3C Team commitment: Per our discussions, I thought the 
> > W3C staff
> > > indicated they didn't want to co-chair or edit. So why the 
> > parenthetical
> > > note?  Maybe Joeseph or Danny can suggest text more 
> > explicitly defining
> > > their role?
> > 
> > "The W3C Team will dedicate 20% of a single person to this 
> > activity for 
> > active WG participation and the Staff Contact role: liasoning 
> > with other 
> > Staff Contacts of identified WGs, and advising the Chair and 
> > WG on W3C 
> > Process and Publishing."
> 
> OK. Frontpage is suggesting lassoing rather than liasoning but
> I'll stick with your version.
> 
> > Finally, 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'd 
> > expect the list name would be www-xkms@w3.org (folks are 
> > trying to make our 
> > conventions for list names between public/member more 
> > consistent) and the URI 
> > of the activity would be http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS (like 
> > Encryption had to 
> > do).
> > 
> > 
> > [2] Declaration of [Submitter]
> >  
> >     [Submitter] hereby grants to the W3C, a perpetual, nonexclusive,
> >     royalty-free, world-wide right and license under any [Submitter]
> >     copyrights in this contribution to copy, publish and 
> > distribute the
> >     contribution, as well as a right and license of the same 
> > scope to any
> >     derivative works prepared by the W3C and based on, or 
> > incorporating all
> >     or part of the contribution. [Submitter] further agrees that any
> >     derivative works of this contribution prepared by the W3C shall be
> >     solely owned by the W3C.
> 
> Where do I put that?
> 
> 
> 		Phill
> 

_______________________________________________________________________________
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 Wednesday, 22 August 2001 13:37:09 UTC