RE: Proposed Final Charter and Activity Proposal

One more Comment:

There is no mention of any "Invited Experts" (Invited experts have to meet some 
W3C confidentiality requirements and must also supply IPR statements.)  
anywhere.  This could be of concern for W3C.

/Shivaram

> Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Shivaram Mysore <Shivaram.Mysore@Sun.COM>
> Subject: RE: Proposed Final Charter and Activity Proposal
> To: www-xkms-ws@w3.org, pbaker@verisign.com
> Content-MD5: Yru6WPR74y/Dz7kBlFR1Dw==
> 
> 
> 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
> 	drafts?"
> 
> 
> Charter:
> -------
> 
> 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
> 		email:
> 	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xkms-ws/2001Aug/0029.html
> 		"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 
> 		say:
> 		"Optionally, XKMS will closely track the XML Coordination Group
> 		and coordinate with other activities as and when required"
> 
> 
> /Shivaram
>

Received on Monday, 27 August 2001 15:42:00 UTC