W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms-ws@w3.org > August 2001

RE: Proposed Final Charter and Activity Proposal

From: Shivaram Mysore <Shivaram.Mysore@Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200108271933.MAA27410@single.eng.sun.com>
To: www-xkms-ws@w3.org, pbaker@verisign.com

Here are some more comments: 

Activity Proposal:

1.  Nowhere in the activity proposal does it actually make the case for why a 
	WG should be formed to *continue* work on XKMS.  It gives every
	impression that the work has already been done, and there's nothing 
	left to work on.  At least some attempt should be made to
	describe to-be-designed features.  
	The same is also true of the Charter, whose introduction talks about
	what XKMS is, but not about what the WG is supposed to be for.
2.  Question "What intellectual property (for example, an implementation)..."
	In the answer to this, the following statement in the activity proposal
	is only partially true:  "A significant advantage of forming a working
	group is that members of the group who may have filed as yet undeclared
	IP claims would be required to make a formal disclosure, thus clarifying
	the IPR status of the specification."  However, it's in a *good* way! 
	Only participating companies offering RAND terms will be required to
	disclose essential patents.  If you offer RF terms to your IP, then you
	don't have to disclose anything.  (Even if the group has an RF mode,
	participating companies are still allowed to offer RAND terms...)
	I think we need to reword this a little bit.
3.  Answer to the Q - "Should new groups be created?"
	Assuming that there will be more than one group, without the likely
	scopes of the additional groups described here.  
	The same comment goes for scope item #4 in the charter.
	Also, the answer is not clear for the following statement - "Is the WG
	only a meta-WG, or will it also produce Recommendation-track XKMS


1.  The "Declaration of [Submitter]" wording in the charter has no context. 
	- Is this supposed to be what WG members need to fill out?  
	- Is it merely a suggestion?  
	- Is it illustrating the IPR statements that the principal authors of 
	  XKMS have agreed to?  
	Also it covers only *copyrights*, not *patents*; this declaration covers
	only the exact text of a contribution/submission and not patents 
	required for implementation. 
2.  Section: Teleconferences:
	Should there be atleast a limited # of regular telecons just to make
	sure that the forum is more open.  The statement "As necessary, the
	Chair may convene teleconferences periodically ..." is not very explicit
	for a W3C style activity.

3.  Section: Coordination with Other Groups:
	Sub Sec - XML Activity:
		"The XKMS Working Group will be represented in the XML
		Coordination Group to coordinate with other activities
		represented in this group. "
		Seems to me that there is no rationale for this statement.
		Note the word "WILL" !  Also, as Joseph pointed out in the
		"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 think, using the word "may" could be better.  Also, it could 
		"Optionally, XKMS will closely track the XML Coordination Group
		and coordinate with other activities as and when required"

Received on Monday, 27 August 2001 15:33:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:21 UTC