RE: [wss] Corrected Minutes of the 1/14/03 telecom

Kelvin

 

John Shewchuk has 
given me a head's up that he will be 
coming out with some corrections to his statements later this week, so I will 
wait for these and send minutes with everyone's 
corrections.  Tim and Tony do you have any additional comments or corrections?  

 

Don

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Kelvin Lawrence 
  [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 2:20 
  PM
To: Flinn, Don
Cc: ronald monzillo; 
  
Subject: RE: [wss] Corrected Minutes of the 
  1/14/03 telecom

Don, do 
  you intend to post updated minutes based on your discussions with Ron and 
  others ? I just want to be sure so I know which minutes we will be voting to 
  approve on our next call. 

Thanks
Kelvin

"Flinn, Don" 
  <> wrote on 01/20/2003 02:12:05 PM:

> 
  Hi Ron
> 
> In response to your question about whether the minutes 
  accurately 
> captured the assurances requested and the assurances 
  offered.  I 
> tried to capture the words of all the members but 
  may have missed 
> some.  If anyone has some corrections or 
  critical words that I may 
> have missed,  I would be happy to 
  update the minutes with such 
> missing or mis-recorded critical 
  wording.
> 
> My own recollection of the sense of this matter was 
  that Tim was 
> looking for reassurances that both IBM and Microsoft 
  agreed with the
> need and urgency for a new TC to be formed quickly and 
  that 
> Microsoft and IBM would participate in the new TC. Further, that 
  the
> wss TC needed and required of the new TC definition of security 
  
> policy and negotiation, which, it was understood, would be part of 
  
> other, broader policy objectives for the new TC. The IBM and 
> 
  Microsoft representatives gave these assurances.  As for what the 
  
> wss TC should create as input to the new TC, I believe that Tim's 
  
> words cover that point- "This TC defines parameters and mechanism 
  
> that need to be agreed between consumer and sender.  Just 
  develop a 
> List.   Leave out the negotiation and the schema.". 
  After that the 
> updated motion was read and unanimously accepted with 
  no objections 
> as to what was intended.
> 
> Don
> 
  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ronald monzillo 
  [mailto:]
> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 1:38 
  PM
> To: Flinn, Don
> Cc: 
> 
  Subject: Re: [wss] Corrected Minutes of the 1/14/03 telecom
> 
> 
  
> Don,
> 
> I'd like to clarify parts of the minutes, 
  especially what I was trying 
> to convey when I spoke.
> 
> 
  > Ron Monzillo Shouldnt we agree as a TC whether we want to do work 
  
> > before discussing changing the charter. There is disagreement on 
  what 
> > the wording of charter means.
> 
> and how can 
  we decide if the charter needs to be changed without first 
> coming to 
  a common understanding
> and agreement of what work it is that we want 
  to test against the scope 
> of the charter.
> 
> > Ron  
  There are different aspects to policy  Policy about binding to 
> > 
  different parts; the way different types of policy are used; Domain 
> 
  > specific policy. We need to understand how to use this. I support the 
  
> > idea that the different parts should be done. 
> 
> 
  I described 3 different aspects of the policy/qop space, suggested that 
  
> the different
> aspects would likely fall into the charter of 
  different forums, and 
> stated that
> in my view, the WSS TC has 
  responsability in the last area.
> 
> . The advertisement or 
  binding of requirements and capabilities
> to service definitions (eg. 
  WSDL) and invocations.
> . The domain independent requirements and 
  capabilities model or framework
> . The domain specific representation 
  of requirements and capabilities in
> support of the use of the wss 
  security mechanisms
> 
> > Ron Monzilla  ...
> 
> 
  Monzillo -
> 
> > Ron  Where are we? We should decide on the 
  nature of the work before 
> > the form it should take. Experience in 
  the space for .host and DNS are 
> > good examples....
> 
  
> because they demonstrate precedent for evolution of the methods used 
  for 
> exchanging
> such information between systems.
> 
  
> > Tim  Im seeking two assurances  1. IBM & Micro feel the 
  time is 
> > right to form a TC 2. Both will participate  Assure not 
  too clear on 
> > #2. Would accept friendly amendment if both 
  assurances are given.
> 
> Do the minutes accurately capture the 
  assurances that were requested and 
> those that were offered?
> I 
  thought there was another aspect of the request relating to what the 
> 
  new TC would accept as
> its inputs.
> 
> Ron
> 
  
> Flinn, Don wrote:
> 
> >The minutes of the 1/14/03 
  telecom have been corrected and are 
> attached.  If there are any 
  other corrections please send them to the list.
> >
> 
  >Don
> >
> > <<Minutes_1_14_03.doc>> 
> 
  >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
  ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To 
  subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: 
  <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>