OASIS Rights Language TC - John S. Erickson' Personal Minutes from RLTC kick-off
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 08:50:39 -0400 From: John Erickson <john_erickson@hplb.hpl.hp.com> To: <rights@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject: Personal Minutes from RLTC kick-off
Hi Folks!
Attached please find the notes I kept throughout the meeting. Note that they
generally follow the agenda outline.
| John S. Erickson, Ph.D.
| Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
| PO Box 1158, Norwich, Vermont USA 05055
| 802-649-1683 (vox) 802-371-9796 (cell) 802-649-1695 (fax)
| john_erickson@hpl.hp.com AIM/YIM/MSN: olyerickson
OASIS RL TC Meeting
21 May 02
1. Welcome
2. Introduction (Hari)
a. Roll call
* Chair: Hari Reddy
* Phone: David Parrott (Reuters)
* Phone: Martha Nalebuff (Microsoft - DRM)
* Phone: Xin Wang (ContentGuard)
* Hal Lockhart (Entegrity)
* Carlisle Adams (Entrust)
* Thomas DeMartini (ContentGuard)
* Bob Glushko (CommerceOne)
* Bob DuCharme (Lexis-Nexus)
* "Parama" M. Paramasivam (Microsoft - DRM)
* Mike Miron (ContentGuard)
* Brad Gandee (ContentGuard)
* Harry Piccariello (ContentGuard)
* Bob Atkinson (Microsoft - *not* DRM - office of the CTO)
* John Erickson (HPLabs)
* Peter Schirling (IBM Research - digital media stds)
- 'single stds language'
- non-monolithic
* Thomas Hardjono (Verisign)
b. Review of OASIS TC Process
* Must be full member
- issue (glusko) limits to number of *voting* members from single company?
- credibility issue
- brad to find out...
- peter: reflects the constituency
* loss of full member status
* OASIS stds process (see also handout)
- Q: Step 2.3.2 (Submission approval by OASIS membership) <10% against voting rule?
* between steps 1 (TC approves spec) and 2 (TC submits spec), THREE companies must demonstrate implementations to spec
- nothing about interop
* Hari to clarify with OASIS references and circulate
* review of "OASIS IPR Policy" (handout)
- ipr.1 general
- ipr.2 confidentiality
- ipr.3 rights and permissions
- ipr.4 Notices
* ACTION: "layman's description" (Hari)
c. OASIS RLTC Vote
i. TC mail list policy
- today, "rights" mail list "closed" (must be subscriber)
- issue: only TC members, or any interested OASIS member
- hal: less headache if not restricted --- open to OASIS members
- VOTE: moved, seconded, no objections...
- SCs can have their own SC mail list policy...
ii. Submitted documents
- XrML 2.1 Submissions
- Q (jse): what *are* the RAND terms? Logo? Code?
- comment: defer discussion --- create SC
- VOTE: moved (jse), seconded (RobG), one abstention PASSES
iii. Voting by email policy
- 5-day voting period
- VOTE: passes
- ACTION: when is something up for vote? Does a SC decide? Hari to clarify policy & procedures...
d. Volunteer/nomination
i. secretary
- ACTION: Brad (for meeting)
ii. web site manager
- interface with OASIS
- ACTION: Hari volunteers
e. XrML standards activities (Brad)
- see presentation
i. digital supply chain
ii. philospohy of xrml: interoperability
iii. list of stds groups interested in REL
- mpeg, oasis, tv_anytime, wap_forum, isma (streaming media), 3gpp
- prism, ice, oebf, idrm/irtf, smpte_dcinema, ws-i alliance
- Q: NewsML?
iv. MPEG-21
v. MPEG-21 REL
vi. OASIS?
- "xrml submitted to mpeg as an application"
- Q: why is mpeg a problem? A: mpeg limited scope
- OASIS perceived as more agnostic
vii. OASIS position relative to other stds
ix. "XrML Extensibility Architecuture"
- std extension
- mpeg extension
- tv_anytime extension
- peter: each org has control over its own destiny
x. "Sample extension design"
xi. "Standards Universe"
- MPEG constellation
- OASIS constellation
- tie between the two
* ContentGuard proposed extension model MPEG
* not official!
* mpeg will need to decide on process for supporting their domain; realize that they can't be stand-along
* incumbent upon RLTC to formalize liase w/ MPEG & propose RLTC core governance model to MPEG (benefits)
- Discussion of ISO Class-A fast-track: only some (3) OASIS TCs have actual "fast-track status"
- Q: Constraints upon RLTC core? evolutionary model?
- Q: XACML
f. Review of TC Charter
- Purpose: see slide 11 (and pg 2 of "proposal")
- Deliverables: see slide 12
- wording of "subsets" deliverables: "policies for compliant subsets?" mandatory subsets?
- what is compliance?
- mappings for interoperability/other standards?
- many changes ensured...
- VOTE: Changes to charter approved
3. Presentation/Dev of the Work Plan
a. Phased development process
- ACTION: Hari to check with Karl on Phase 3 "ongoing process" assumptions --- debate within group over whether OASIS groups typically do this
- ACTION: Hari to change wording from exact times to estimated times...
b. RLTC sub committee structure
- Governance/Liason SC
* defining extensions dev process???
- Requirements SC
- Core & Standard Extension Spec SC
* Correction requests
* Extension requests
* Requests for new features & functions (that possibly break old implementations)
- Examples SC
* "show some XML..."
- Profiles SC
* TD: We need SC to develop profiles
* Peter: Two profile strategies
- nested vs. towers
* Hal: Overlapping Profiles?
* Brad: profiles might have nothing to do with XML
* TD: "Foo" example: having e.g. pre-defined profiles for "high-end" and "low-end" are good
- interested domains pick profile that suits them
- schema factoring is not the only way to do it
- SC comes up with "pallet of choices" to avoid domains from having come up with their own
* Peter: avoiding extension islands --- avoid fragmenting the industry, such that interoperability becomes meaningless
- Extensions Process & Models SC
* Mission: develop extensions development process
* Input:
* Output: process, model
- IPR SC ???
* Q: Is this legimate
* Mission: Collect submissions, clarify IP statements, resolve IP concerns that "hit" the TC, IPR considerations?
* Input:
* Output:
- Security & Privacy SC ???
* List of special considerations?
i. SC Chair Nominations
- governance: brad, peter co-chairs
- requirements: bobg, hari
- core & standard extension specification: tomD, johnE
- examples: , BobD
- profiles:
- extensions process & models: parama
- IPR SC?
- Security & Privacy?
c. 30-60 day deliverables
- this is back-calculated from MPEG)
- Issue: this is NOT supposed to be about MPEG!
- So: the way to view this is, *if* we were to meet the suggested MPEG dates, this is what we would have to do...
i. 30-day plan
- SC work plans (Q: TomD: 14 days?)
- integrated RLTC work plan
- *** Governance proposal to MPEG
* Pete & Brad to have draft of Governance Doc
- Use Case SC draft
- liaisons ID'd and est'd
- Requirements doc
ii. 60-day plan (what about 6 mos????)
- 1st DRAFT of specification
- Governance final doc
d. Logistics:
- Bi-weekly (every other week) telecon
* 1 hr
* status and clarifications
* updates to RLTC workplan
* WEDS, 12p eastern (ACTION: Hari to send out details)
- May 29: Next call
- Quarterly f2f
* min 1day
- SCs
* each SC creates its own mtg schedule
4. Baseline Discussion on XrML
a. Architecture --- V 2.1 review
5 Action Item review
a. Get "layman's" description of IPR policy (BobG)
b. Clarify policy & procedures for email voting (HR)
c. Check with Karl on ongoing status of TC (HR)
d. Change wording to estimated times in the Phase Dev process (HR)
e. Draft governance process (BradG/PeterS)
f. Sign up for SCs (all)
g. Identify IPR (all)
Prepared by Robin Cover for The XML Cover Pages archive. See: "OASIS Rights Language" and the posting source
