OASIS Emergency Management TC

Draft minutes from last meeting (8 Dec 09)

  • 1.  Draft minutes from last meeting (8 Dec 09)

    Posted 12-22-2009 16:27
    Thanks to Elysa for suggesting that I take a look at the draft minutes
    from your meeting which I recently attended.  I have the following
    comments for your consideration.
    
    In section 3a (about ITU x.1303 and backwards compatibility):
    (i) I'd consider a reqording of these sentences to emphasis the
    continuing role of the TC:
    
    [from]
    It is not incumbent on the TC to try to work through coordination with
    other organizations.  It is OASIS Staff that will send the Standard to
    ITU-T, not the TC.  He did recommend that we give this some thought
    and be prepared to provide a detailed document to qualify the choices
    and considerations that were made.
    [to]
    OASIS staff makes the fornmal submissions to ITU, and directly handles
    liaison matters with help from the committee's appointed liaison
    member(s).  However, the TC retains decision-making power over all
    technical aspects of the work, including the content of future
    versions.  He suggested that we give  some thought to the possible
    critiques we may encounter, including at ITU, and be prepared to
    provide a detailed document to qualify the choices and considerations
    that were made.
    
    and (ii) I think there's a word missing in this sentence:
    Jacob responded as the primary editor of CAP 1.2.  He admitted not
    have extensive knowledge of ASN.1 backward compatibility.
    
    In section 3b (about ITU H.323)
    (iii) I'd like to correct the uwe of a word here:
    [from]
    Jamie stated that the H.323 study group working this does not have a
    security focus and picked it up as applied to a different use case.
    [to]
    Jamie stated that the H.323 study group working this comes from a
    different group than the "security" study group, and has applied our
    specification to a different use case.
    
    (iv) Finally, I'm not sure the point made in this last paragraph was
    mind - and really, it's a matter for the TC to judge, not staff.  So I
    have suggested a rewording to make it an open questuion.
    [from]
    He further stated that while CAP has been around a while now, it has
    certainly had much use and update but is still a bit underspecified.
    It shows up with one-off individual taxonomies of authorization and
    permission. Who gets to see it, seems to be re-invented with who has a
    right to see and do what.
    [to]
    It was noted that while CAP has been around a while now, and certainly
    has much use, it might be a bit underspecified.  It shows up with
    one-off individual taxonomies of authorization and permission. The
    committee may want to think about issues of data access, and the
    contexts in which CAP is used:  who gets to see the data, and do what
    to it, seems to vary greatly among uses and implementation.  .
    
    Thanks for your consideration, and all of your work on these important
    open standards projects.
    
    Warm regards and happy holidays  Jamie
    
    ~ James Bryce Clark
    ~ General Counsel, OASIS
    ~ http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#clark