OASIS ebXML Core (ebCore) TC

Submitter's message
Hi,

I got input from W3C to resolve the remaining issue with the XML Signature Schema driver, and made some additional (mostly editorial) fixes. Details below. I accepted all tracked changes for wd10 (PR comments) before making the additional changes, so the wd10 and wd11 together reflect the updates to the CSPRD.

One small functional change is a new optional Reason element, to encode the reason an update is requested.

Could you all please send any final comments in the next two/three weeks? I would like to start a new CSD vote around the end of the month.

If the CSD is approved, do you think a new PR would be needed before a CS vote? If we do, we could have one combined TC vote for CSD, new PR, and starting a new vote if no new comments in second PR.

From the change log:
Review comments EJVN processed.
In section 2.1, added a general statement about third parties.
Other editorial clarifications / improvements.
Other:
Editorial fixes.
Reference to and explanation for xmldsig1-schema.xsd added.
In the package, added updated xmldsig1-schema.xsd with embedded comments.
Added OASIS copyright notice to AU and CU schemas.
Updated CPA3 link to latest draft.
In ebMS bindings, Agreement Termination may be a separate Service.
New optional Reason in Update Request. -- Mr. Pim van der Eijk Document Name : ebcore-au-v1.0-wd11 Description The ebCore Agreement Update specification defines message exchanges and an XML schema to support the exchange of messaging service communication agreement update requests and the associated responses to such requests. The schema offers extensibility for various types of updates. The main initial application of the specification is the exchange of X.509 certificates for certificate rollover, for which a separate extension schema is provided. The specification is based on the concept of messaging service communication agreements and the creation of new agreements as independently identified updated copies of existing agreements. The specification also provides an Agreement Termination feature. The specification supports ebMS2, ebMS3 and AS4 but can also be used with other protocols that have a concept of communication agreement. The specification is independent of storage or interchange formats for configuration information. Download Latest Revision Public Download Link Submitter : Mr. Pim van der Eijk Group : OASIS ebXML Core (ebCore) TC Folder : Contributions Date submitted : 2016-03-05 06:18:38 Revision : 10

Dear all, I have not received any comments on WD11 in the past three weeks.   WD11 had minor changes compared to WD10,  which was uploaded six weeks ago and incorporated updates relating to feedback from the first Public Review.   So my conclusion is that you as TC have no further comments on this specification at this stage. If you agree,  my proposal is therefore to re-approve WD11 as CSD.   Since some of the changes were material,  the OASIS process requires us to have a new public review,  for a minimum of 15 days.    A second public review in the OASIS process shall be limited in scope to changes made since the previous review.     After that, if there are no further comments to address, we can wrap up this deliverable, as there are no known requests for changes or enhancements, by approving it as CS.   To keep things simple for you as TC members,  I intend to combine these three actions for you as TC members (CSD approval of WD11, 2nd PR for this CSD,  initiate CS vote if no comments during second PR) in one vote,  for which I will set up an electronic ballot early next month.  Please let me know if you have any questions or comments on this.   Kind Regards, Pim P.S. If there are comments in the second PR, we obviously need to discuss how to handle them after the review period closes. If the comments are such that further non-material changes are needed,  then we cannot upgrade CSD2-PRD2 to CS directly but need to go through (a) new WD(s) and a CSD3 first.  But as there were few comments in the first review and the changes are minor,  I don't expect much feedback ...).    -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [ebcore] Groups - ebcore-au-v1.0-wd11 uploaded Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 06:19:24 -0800 (PST) From: Pim van der Eijk <pvde@sonnenglanz.net> To: ebcore@lists.oasis-open.org Submitter's message Hi, I got input from W3C to resolve the remaining issue with the XML Signature Schema driver, and made some additional (mostly editorial) fixes. Details below. I accepted all tracked changes for wd10 (PR comments) before making the additional changes, so the wd10 and wd11 together reflect the updates to the CSPRD. One small functional change is a new optional Reason element, to encode the reason an update is requested. Could you all please send any final comments in the next two/three weeks? I would like to start a new CSD vote around the end of the month. If the CSD is approved, do you think a new PR would be needed before a CS vote? If we do, we could have one combined TC vote for CSD, new PR, and starting a new vote if no new comments in second PR. From the change log: Review comments EJVN processed. In section 2.1, added a general statement about third parties. Other editorial clarifications / improvements. Other: Editorial fixes. Reference to and explanation for xmldsig1-schema.xsd added. In the package, added updated xmldsig1-schema.xsd with embedded comments. Added OASIS copyright notice to AU and CU schemas. Updated CPA3 link to latest draft. In ebMS bindings, Agreement Termination may be a separate Service. New optional Reason in Update Request. -- Mr. Pim van der Eijk Document Name : ebcore-au-v1.0-wd11 Description The ebCore Agreement Update specification defines message exchanges and an XML schema to support the exchange of messaging service communication agreement update requests and the associated responses to such requests. The schema offers extensibility for various types of updates. The main initial application of the specification is the exchange of X.509 certificates for certificate rollover, for which a separate extension schema is provided. The specification is based on the concept of messaging service communication agreements and the creation of new agreements as independently identified updated copies of existing agreements. The specification also provides an Agreement Termination feature. The specification supports ebMS2, ebMS3 and AS4 but can also be used with other protocols that have a concept of communication agreement. The specification is independent of storage or interchange formats for configuration information. Download Latest Revision Public Download Link Submitter : Mr. Pim van der Eijk Group : OASIS ebXML Core (ebCore) TC Folder : Contributions Date submitted : 2016-03-05 06:18:38 Revision : 10

Hi Pim I have unfortunately been snowed under for the past couple of months and will be busy until a 5 April deadline I have to meet. If possible I would like to give it a read through after that prior to it being re-approved. Can we set a deadline say for 11 April ? > On 29 Mar 2016, at 09:00 , Pim van der Eijk <pvde@sonnenglanz.net> wrote: > > > Dear all, > > I have not received any comments on WD11 in the past three weeks. WD11 had minor changes compared to WD10, which was uploaded six weeks ago and incorporated updates relating to feedback from the first Public Review. So my conclusion is that you as TC have no further comments on this specification at this stage. > > If you agree, my proposal is therefore to re-approve WD11 as CSD. Since some of the changes were material, the OASIS process requires us to have a new public review, for a minimum of 15 days. A second public review in the OASIS process shall be limited in scope to changes made since the previous review. After that, if there are no further comments to address, we can wrap up this deliverable, as there are no known requests for changes or enhancements, by approving it as CS. To keep things simple for you as TC members, I intend to combine these three actions for you as TC members (CSD approval of WD11, 2nd PR for this CSD, initiate CS vote if no comments during second PR) in one vote, for which I will set up an electronic ballot early next month. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments on this. > > Kind Regards, > > Pim > > P.S. If there are comments in the second PR, we obviously need to discuss how to handle them after the review period closes. If the comments are such that further non-material changes are needed, then we cannot upgrade CSD2-PRD2 to CS directly but need to go through (a) new WD(s) and a CSD3 first. But as there were few comments in the first review and the changes are minor, I don't expect much feedback ...). > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: [ebcore] Groups - ebcore-au-v1.0-wd11 uploaded > Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 06:19:24 -0800 (PST) > From: Pim van der Eijk <pvde@sonnenglanz.net> > To: ebcore@lists.oasis-open.org > > Submitter's message > > Hi, > > I got input from W3C to resolve the remaining issue with the XML Signature Schema driver, and made some additional (mostly editorial) fixes. Details below. I accepted all tracked changes for wd10 (PR comments) before making the additional changes, so the wd10 and wd11 together reflect the updates to the CSPRD. > > One small functional change is a new optional Reason element, to encode the reason an update is requested. > > Could you all please send any final comments in the next two/three weeks? I would like to start a new CSD vote around the end of the month. > > If the CSD is approved, do you think a new PR would be needed before a CS vote? If we do, we could have one combined TC vote for CSD, new PR, and starting a new vote if no new comments in second PR. > > From the change log: > Review comments EJVN processed. > In section 2.1, added a general statement about third parties. > Other editorial clarifications / improvements. > Other: > Editorial fixes. > Reference to and explanation for xmldsig1-schema.xsd added. > In the package, added updated xmldsig1-schema.xsd with embedded comments. > Added OASIS copyright notice to AU and CU schemas. > Updated CPA3 link to latest draft. > In ebMS bindings, Agreement Termination may be a separate Service. > New optional Reason in Update Request. > > -- Mr. Pim van der Eijk > Document Name: ebcore-au-v1.0-wd11 > Description > The ebCore Agreement Update specification defines message exchanges and an > XML schema to support the exchange of messaging service communication > agreement update requests and the associated responses to such requests. > The schema offers extensibility for various types of updates. The main > initial application of the specification is the exchange of X.509 > certificates for certificate rollover, for which a separate extension > schema is provided. The specification is based on the concept of messaging > service communication agreements and the creation of new agreements as > independently identified updated copies of existing agreements. The > specification also provides an Agreement Termination feature. The > specification supports ebMS2, ebMS3 and AS4 but can also be used with other > protocols that have a concept of communication agreement. The specification > is independent of storage or interchange formats for configuration > information. > Download Latest Revision > Public Download Link > Submitter: Mr. Pim van der Eijk > Group: OASIS ebXML Core (ebCore) TC > Folder: Contributions > Date submitted: 2016-03-05 06:18:38 > Revision: 10 > > > -- Regards Theo Kramer FCE http://flame.co.za +27826024026

Hi Theo, No problem, we can wait until 11 April before opening the ballot. Kind Regards, Pim On 29-03-16 10:45, Theo Kramer wrote: Hi Pim I have unfortunately been snowed under for the past couple of months and will be busy until a 5 April deadline I have to meet. If possible I would like to give it a read through after that prior to it being re-approved. Can we set a deadline say for 11 April ? On 29 Mar 2016, at 09:00 , Pim van der Eijk <pvde@sonnenglanz.net> wrote: Dear all, I have not received any comments on WD11 in the past three weeks. WD11 had minor changes compared to WD10, which was uploaded six weeks ago and incorporated updates relating to feedback from the first Public Review. So my conclusion is that you as TC have no further comments on this specification at this stage. If you agree, my proposal is therefore to re-approve WD11 as CSD. Since some of the changes were material, the OASIS process requires us to have a new public review, for a minimum of 15 days. A second public review in the OASIS process shall be limited in scope to changes made since the previous review. After that, if there are no further comments to address, we can wrap up this deliverable, as there are no known requests for changes or enhancements, by approving it as CS. To keep things simple for you as TC members, I intend to combine these three actions for you as TC members (CSD approval of WD11, 2nd PR for this CSD, initiate CS vote if no comments during second PR) in one vote, for which I will set up an electronic ballot early next month. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments on this. Kind Regards, Pim P.S. If there are comments in the second PR, we obviously need to discuss how to handle them after the review period closes. If the comments are such that further non-material changes are needed, then we cannot upgrade CSD2-PRD2 to CS directly but need to go through (a) new WD(s) and a CSD3 first. But as there were few comments in the first review and the changes are minor, I don't expect much feedback ...). -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [ebcore] Groups - ebcore-au-v1.0-wd11 uploaded Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 06:19:24 -0800 (PST) From: Pim van der Eijk <pvde@sonnenglanz.net> To: ebcore@lists.oasis-open.org Submitter's message Hi, I got input from W3C to resolve the remaining issue with the XML Signature Schema driver, and made some additional (mostly editorial) fixes. Details below. I accepted all tracked changes for wd10 (PR comments) before making the additional changes, so the wd10 and wd11 together reflect the updates to the CSPRD. One small functional change is a new optional Reason element, to encode the reason an update is requested. Could you all please send any final comments in the next two/three weeks? I would like to start a new CSD vote around the end of the month. If the CSD is approved, do you think a new PR would be needed before a CS vote? If we do, we could have one combined TC vote for CSD, new PR, and starting a new vote if no new comments in second PR. From the change log: Review comments EJVN processed. In section 2.1, added a general statement about third parties. Other editorial clarifications / improvements. Other: Editorial fixes. Reference to and explanation for xmldsig1-schema.xsd added. In the package, added updated xmldsig1-schema.xsd with embedded comments. Added OASIS copyright notice to AU and CU schemas. Updated CPA3 link to latest draft. In ebMS bindings, Agreement Termination may be a separate Service. New optional Reason in Update Request. -- Mr. Pim van der Eijk Document Name: ebcore-au-v1.0-wd11 Description The ebCore Agreement Update specification defines message exchanges and an XML schema to support the exchange of messaging service communication agreement update requests and the associated responses to such requests. The schema offers extensibility for various types of updates. The main initial application of the specification is the exchange of X.509 certificates for certificate rollover, for which a separate extension schema is provided. The specification is based on the concept of messaging service communication agreements and the creation of new agreements as independently identified updated copies of existing agreements. The specification also provides an Agreement Termination feature. The specification supports ebMS2, ebMS3 and AS4 but can also be used with other protocols that have a concept of communication agreement. The specification is independent of storage or interchange formats for configuration information. Download Latest Revision Public Download Link Submitter: Mr. Pim van der Eijk Group: OASIS ebXML Core (ebCore) TC Folder: Contributions Date submitted: 2016-03-05 06:18:38 Revision: 10

Hi Pim Please find my updated document attached. Updates are mainly of an editorial nature. Attachment: ebcore-au-v1.0-wd11-tk.odt Description: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text > On 29 Mar 2016, at 13:43 , Pim van der Eijk <pvde@sonnenglanz.net> wrote: > > > Hi Theo, > > No problem, we can wait until 11 April before opening the ballot. > > Kind Regards, > > Pim > > > > On 29-03-16 10:45, Theo Kramer wrote: >> Hi Pim >> >> I have unfortunately been snowed under for the past couple of months and will be busy until a 5 April deadline I have to meet. If possible I would like to give it a read through after that prior to it being re-approved. Can we set a deadline say for 11 April ? >> >>> On 29 Mar 2016, at 09:00 , Pim van der Eijk <pvde@sonnenglanz.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I have not received any comments on WD11 in the past three weeks. WD11 had minor changes compared to WD10, which was uploaded six weeks ago and incorporated updates relating to feedback from the first Public Review. So my conclusion is that you as TC have no further comments on this specification at this stage. >>> >>> If you agree, my proposal is therefore to re-approve WD11 as CSD. Since some of the changes were material, the OASIS process requires us to have a new public review, for a minimum of 15 days. A second public review in the OASIS process shall be limited in scope to changes made since the previous review. After that, if there are no further comments to address, we can wrap up this deliverable, as there are no known requests for changes or enhancements, by approving it as CS. To keep things simple for you as TC members, I intend to combine these three actions for you as TC members (CSD approval of WD11, 2nd PR for this CSD, initiate CS vote if no comments during second PR) in one vote, for which I will set up an electronic ballot early next month. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments on this. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> Pim >>> >>> P.S. If there are comments in the second PR, we obviously need to discuss how to handle them after the review period closes. If the comments are such that further non-material changes are needed, then we cannot upgrade CSD2-PRD2 to CS directly but need to go through (a) new WD(s) and a CSD3 first. But as there were few comments in the first review and the changes are minor, I don't expect much feedback ...). >>> >>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> Subject: [ebcore] Groups - ebcore-au-v1.0-wd11 uploaded >>> Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 06:19:24 -0800 (PST) >>> From: Pim van der Eijk <pvde@sonnenglanz.net> >>> To: ebcore@lists.oasis-open.org >>> >>> Submitter's message >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I got input from W3C to resolve the remaining issue with the XML Signature Schema driver, and made some additional (mostly editorial) fixes. Details below. I accepted all tracked changes for wd10 (PR comments) before making the additional changes, so the wd10 and wd11 together reflect the updates to the CSPRD. >>> >>> One small functional change is a new optional Reason element, to encode the reason an update is requested. >>> >>> Could you all please send any final comments in the next two/three weeks? I would like to start a new CSD vote around the end of the month. >>> >>> If the CSD is approved, do you think a new PR would be needed before a CS vote? If we do, we could have one combined TC vote for CSD, new PR, and starting a new vote if no new comments in second PR. >>> >>> From the change log: >>> Review comments EJVN processed. >>> In section 2.1, added a general statement about third parties. >>> Other editorial clarifications / improvements. >>> Other: >>> Editorial fixes. >>> Reference to and explanation for xmldsig1-schema.xsd added. >>> In the package, added updated xmldsig1-schema.xsd with embedded comments. >>> Added OASIS copyright notice to AU and CU schemas. >>> Updated CPA3 link to latest draft. >>> In ebMS bindings, Agreement Termination may be a separate Service. >>> New optional Reason in Update Request. >>> >>> -- Mr. Pim van der Eijk >>> Document Name: ebcore-au-v1.0-wd11 >>> Description >>> The ebCore Agreement Update specification defines message exchanges and an >>> XML schema to support the exchange of messaging service communication >>> agreement update requests and the associated responses to such requests. >>> The schema offers extensibility for various types of updates. The main >>> initial application of the specification is the exchange of X.509 >>> certificates for certificate rollover, for which a separate extension >>> schema is provided. The specification is based on the concept of messaging >>> service communication agreements and the creation of new agreements as >>> independently identified updated copies of existing agreements. The >>> specification also provides an Agreement Termination feature. The >>> specification supports ebMS2, ebMS3 and AS4 but can also be used with other >>> protocols that have a concept of communication agreement. The specification >>> is independent of storage or interchange formats for configuration >>> information. >>> Download Latest Revision >>> Public Download Link >>> Submitter: Mr. Pim van der Eijk >>> Group: OASIS ebXML Core (ebCore) TC >>> Folder: Contributions >>> Date submitted: 2016-03-05 06:18:38 >>> Revision: 10 >>> >>> >>> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php — Regards Theo Kramer theo@flame.co.za

Hi Theo, Many thanks for the feedback.  I will post an updated draft later today.   Basically it will accept all your editorial fixes and in response to two of the questions/comments a few additional sentences will be added.  Since there are changes,  I will not start the Ballot today to give people time to review that new draft.  I'm hoping a week or ten days is enough for that review?   If there are no objections,  I would like to start the ballot some time next week. As a reminder,  the proposal wrt the ballot was to have one TC ballot to (i) re-approve this draft as CSD,  (ii) request TC admin to start a second PR and (iii) request your approval to request TC admin to start a CS vote after the PR if there are no comments from the PR that need discussing.  Kind Regards, Pim   On 09-04-16 14:24, Theo Kramer (gmail) wrote: Hi Pim Please find my updated document attached. Updates are mainly of an editorial nature. On 29 Mar 2016, at 13:43 , Pim van der Eijk <pvde@sonnenglanz.net> wrote: Hi Theo, No problem, we can wait until 11 April before opening the ballot. Kind Regards, Pim On 29-03-16 10:45, Theo Kramer wrote: Hi Pim I have unfortunately been snowed under for the past couple of months and will be busy until a 5 April deadline I have to meet. If possible I would like to give it a read through after that prior to it being re-approved. Can we set a deadline say for 11 April ? On 29 Mar 2016, at 09:00 , Pim van der Eijk <pvde@sonnenglanz.net> wrote: Dear all, I have not received any comments on WD11 in the past three weeks. WD11 had minor changes compared to WD10, which was uploaded six weeks ago and incorporated updates relating to feedback from the first Public Review. So my conclusion is that you as TC have no further comments on this specification at this stage. If you agree, my proposal is therefore to re-approve WD11 as CSD. Since some of the changes were material, the OASIS process requires us to have a new public review, for a minimum of 15 days. A second public review in the OASIS process shall be limited in scope to changes made since the previous review. After that, if there are no further comments to address, we can wrap up this deliverable, as there are no known requests for changes or enhancements, by approving it as CS. To keep things simple for you as TC members, I intend to combine these three actions for you as TC members (CSD approval of WD11, 2nd PR for this CSD, initiate CS vote if no comments during second PR) in one vote, for which I will set up an electronic ballot early next month. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments on this. Kind Regards, Pim P.S. If there are comments in the second PR, we obviously need to discuss how to handle them after the review period closes. If the comments are such that further non-material changes are needed, then we cannot upgrade CSD2-PRD2 to CS directly but need to go through (a) new WD(s) and a CSD3 first. But as there were few comments in the first review and the changes are minor, I don't expect much feedback ...). -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [ebcore] Groups - ebcore-au-v1.0-wd11 uploaded Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 06:19:24 -0800 (PST) From: Pim van der Eijk <pvde@sonnenglanz.net> To: ebcore@lists.oasis-open.org Submitter's message Hi, I got input from W3C to resolve the remaining issue with the XML Signature Schema driver, and made some additional (mostly editorial) fixes. Details below. I accepted all tracked changes for wd10 (PR comments) before making the additional changes, so the wd10 and wd11 together reflect the updates to the CSPRD. One small functional change is a new optional Reason element, to encode the reason an update is requested. Could you all please send any final comments in the next two/three weeks? I would like to start a new CSD vote around the end of the month. If the CSD is approved, do you think a new PR would be needed before a CS vote? If we do, we could have one combined TC vote for CSD, new PR, and starting a new vote if no new comments in second PR. From the change log: Review comments EJVN processed. In section 2.1, added a general statement about third parties. Other editorial clarifications / improvements. Other: Editorial fixes. Reference to and explanation for xmldsig1-schema.xsd added. In the package, added updated xmldsig1-schema.xsd with embedded comments. Added OASIS copyright notice to AU and CU schemas. Updated CPA3 link to latest draft. In ebMS bindings, Agreement Termination may be a separate Service. New optional Reason in Update Request. -- Mr. Pim van der Eijk Document Name: ebcore-au-v1.0-wd11 Description The ebCore Agreement Update specification defines message exchanges and an XML schema to support the exchange of messaging service communication agreement update requests and the associated responses to such requests. The schema offers extensibility for various types of updates. The main initial application of the specification is the exchange of X.509 certificates for certificate rollover, for which a separate extension schema is provided. The specification is based on the concept of messaging service communication agreements and the creation of new agreements as independently identified updated copies of existing agreements. The specification also provides an Agreement Termination feature. The specification supports ebMS2, ebMS3 and AS4 but can also be used with other protocols that have a concept of communication agreement. The specification is independent of storage or interchange formats for configuration information. Download Latest Revision Public Download Link Submitter: Mr. Pim van der Eijk Group: OASIS ebXML Core (ebCore) TC Folder: Contributions Date submitted: 2016-03-05 06:18:38 Revision: 10 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php — Regards Theo Kramer theo@flame.co.za --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

Dear all, I would like to follow up on the Agreement Update specification and on the email below.    The TC agreed to the three steps outlined in the email in the following TC Ballot: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ballot.php?id=2934 As requested,  OASIS issued a second Public Review: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebcore/201607/msg00000.html As evidenced by the comment list and the TC mailing list,  no comments have been submitted for this Public Review: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebcore-comment/ https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebcore/ This means that we can now take the final step.  In our Ballot we resolved to request a Special Majority Vote for the advancement of the draft as a Committee Specification,  in accordance with the OASIS TC Process: https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#committeeSpec To avoid having the vote in the midst of the (Northern Hemisphere) summer holiday period,  I've waited some time so that all voting members have the opportunity to participate.  As we are now close to September,  I intend to contact TC Admin and initiate the vote soon.   Please let me know if you have any issues with this timing or any other concerns.  The TC currently has 8 voting members.  The list is here: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/membership.php?wg_abbrev=ebcore Erlend Klakegg Bergheim Difi-Agency for Public Management and eGovernment Voting Member Torsten Kirschner Directorate of Labour and Welfare Norway Voting Member Theo Kramer Flame Computing Enterprises cc Voting Member Sander Fieten Individual Chair FARRUKH NAJMI Individual Voting Member Albert Kappe Justitiele Informatiedienst Voting Member Pim van der Eijk Sonnenglanz Consulting Chair Ernst Jan van Nigtevecht Sonnenglanz Consulting Voting Member If you are listed as a voting member but don't want to vote,  you can change your member status to Observer.   The approval needs at least 2/3 (two thirds) of the Voting Members to vote yes and no more than 1/4 (one fourth) of the Voting Members to vote no .   Kind Regards, Pim van der Eijk On 29-03-16 09:00, Pim van der Eijk wrote: Dear all, I have not received any comments on WD11 in the past three weeks.   WD11 had minor changes compared to WD10,  which was uploaded six weeks ago and incorporated updates relating to feedback from the first Public Review.   So my conclusion is that you as TC have no further comments on this specification at this stage. If you agree,  my proposal is therefore to re-approve WD11 as CSD.   Since some of the changes were material,  the OASIS process requires us to have a new public review,  for a minimum of 15 days.    A second public review in the OASIS process shall be limited in scope to changes made since the previous review.     After that, if there are no further comments to address, we can wrap up this deliverable, as there are no known requests for changes or enhancements, by approving it as CS.   To keep things simple for you as TC members,  I intend to combine these three actions for you as TC members (CSD approval of WD11, 2nd PR for this CSD,  initiate CS vote if no comments during second PR) in one vote,  for which I will set up an electronic ballot early next month.  Please let me know if you have any questions or comments on this.   Kind Regards, Pim P.S. If there are comments in the second PR, we obviously need to discuss how to handle them after the review period closes. If the comments are such that further non-material changes are needed,  then we cannot upgrade CSD2-PRD2 to CS directly but need to go through (a) new WD(s) and a CSD3 first.  But as there were few comments in the first review and the changes are minor,  I don't expect much feedback ...).    -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [ebcore] Groups - ebcore-au-v1.0-wd11 uploaded Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 06:19:24 -0800 (PST) From: Pim van der Eijk <pvde@sonnenglanz.net> To: ebcore@lists.oasis-open.org Submitter's message Hi, I got input from W3C to resolve the remaining issue with the XML Signature Schema driver, and made some additional (mostly editorial) fixes. Details below. I accepted all tracked changes for wd10 (PR comments) before making the additional changes, so the wd10 and wd11 together reflect the updates to the CSPRD. One small functional change is a new optional Reason element, to encode the reason an update is requested. Could you all please send any final comments in the next two/three weeks? I would like to start a new CSD vote around the end of the month. If the CSD is approved, do you think a new PR would be needed before a CS vote? If we do, we could have one combined TC vote for CSD, new PR, and starting a new vote if no new comments in second PR. From the change log: Review comments EJVN processed. In section 2.1, added a general statement about third parties. Other editorial clarifications / improvements. Other: Editorial fixes. Reference to and explanation for xmldsig1-schema.xsd added. In the package, added updated xmldsig1-schema.xsd with embedded comments. Added OASIS copyright notice to AU and CU schemas. Updated CPA3 link to latest draft. In ebMS bindings, Agreement Termination may be a separate Service. New optional Reason in Update Request. -- Mr. Pim van der Eijk Document Name : ebcore-au-v1.0-wd11 Description The ebCore Agreement Update specification defines message exchanges and an XML schema to support the exchange of messaging service communication agreement update requests and the associated responses to such requests. The schema offers extensibility for various types of updates. The main initial application of the specification is the exchange of X.509 certificates for certificate rollover, for which a separate extension schema is provided. The specification is based on the concept of messaging service communication agreements and the creation of new agreements as independently identified updated copies of existing agreements. The specification also provides an Agreement Termination feature. The specification supports ebMS2, ebMS3 and AS4 but can also be used with other protocols that have a concept of communication agreement. The specification is independent of storage or interchange formats for configuration information. Download Latest Revision Public Download Link Submitter : Mr. Pim van der Eijk Group : OASIS ebXML Core (ebCore) TC Folder : Contributions Date submitted : 2016-03-05 06:18:38 Revision : 10

Hello, Chet Ensign made a suggestion regarding the following paragraph: On 26-08-16 09:46, Pim van der Eijk wrote: If you are listed as a voting member but don't want to vote, you can change your member status to Observer. The approval needs at least 2/3 (two thirds) of the Voting Members to vote "yes" and no more than 1/4 (one fourth) of the Voting Members to vote "no". He indicates that a better alternative than Observator is Persistent Non-Voting Member. That way you can participate (which you cannot do as Observers) but not be counted towards quorum and not be included on ballots. Good weekend, Pim van der Eijk