Tim,
First, I do not want to wait for V 2.0 for approval as an OASIS standard.
My idea is to finish V 1.1 in a timely manner and get that approved as an
OASIS standard while we work on V 2.0. We need to settle on a target date
for completion of V 1.1 as soon as possible and no later than the Oct. 1-3
meeting. I also believe that it will be essential to coordinate the
schedule for completion of V 1.1 with the MSG team so that both CPPA 1.1
and MSG 1.1 are up for approval at the same time. The reason is all the
interlock points between the two standards.
An approved V 1.1 should definitely have a positive marketing effect.
Public-review comments on V 1.1 will be extremely valuable. On the other
hand, it is not obvious that collecting public-review comments on V 1.0 at
this late date serves a significant purpose, given the number of things we
already know we need to fix. Sorting those comments to figure out what is
new and what we already know about will certainly be a distraction. (I am,
of course, assuming that there will be a significant number of comments;
given the lack of activity on ebxml-cppa-comment, that is by no means
certain.) In any case, if we do start a public-review period on V 1.0, the
commenters will expect responses and that we do something with the comment
whether or not they affect the immediate approval process.
Karl Best will have to confirm this but my recollection is that the ebXML
IPR policy was closely modelled on the OASIS policy if it isn't identical.
If so, moving the spec to OASIS should have little or no IPR impact on
implementers.
Regards,
Marty
*************************************************************************************
Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************
"Collier, Timothy R" <> on 08/24/2001 04:35:54
PM
To:
cc:
Subject: FW: OASIS schedule update
Dale, Marty, All,
I am happy to go with the flow, but from what I read of Lisa's mail, it
seemed to indicate that the comments could not force changes to the
reviewed spec.
3. The timeline of number 2 gives us a nice cushion to get a lot public
comments before it goes out for membership review. According to Karl, the
specification that is sent out for review is the specification that is
balloted with no changes allowed in between.
So, I don't see how that could have a resource impact.
Now I do wonderif by having the spec as an OASIS standard, it makes a
difference to implementers. Like are the IP rules for use of the ebXML
standard the same as the rules of use for an OASIS standard? If by moving
it to an approved OASIS standard it buys the users something, then I would
think that would be useful.
Also, I am a little concerned that if we wait for v2.0, the delay in
having a standard could be a problem for the end users. Thinking about
the timeline, we are what 16 months from the end of the CPP/A v2.0 TC? So
that would roughly put it in January of 2003, it then goes to OASIS
membership by Feb 2003, they have 30 days to comment, then the balloting
is April 2003. Are the end users willing to wait? Are we opening up a
window for other standards bodies to release things that compete in the
interim? Would having a v1.1 provide at least a marketing opportunity to
try to maintain momentum?
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Carnahan [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 1:47 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: OASIS schedule update
Hello All,
I spoke with Karl Best this morning regarding the schedule for submitting
specs for an OASIS Membership vote. What I said yesterday was wrong
regarding making a submission at the end of September.
The Process is as follows: (excerpted from
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.shtml . See the link for the
complete text)
Section 2. Standards Process
...Upon resolution of the TC to move the specification forward, its chair
shall submit the following items to OASIS:
(a) a formal specification that is a valid member of its type;
(b) appropriate documentation for the specification;
(c) a clear English-language summary of the specification;
(d) certification by at least three OASIS member organizations that they
are successfully using the specification;
(e) an account of or pointer to votes and comments received in any earlier
attempts to standardize substantially the same specification, together
with the originating TC's response to each comment;
f) a pointer to the publicly visible comments archive for the originating
TC; and
(g) a statement from the chair of the TC certifying that all members of
the TC have been provided with a copy of the OASIS IPR policy.
Thirty days shall be allowed for administrative processing of a proposed
standard.
The proposal shall be submitted to the OASIS membership for review at the
beginning of the first calendar quarter following the 30 days allocated
for administrative review.
At the beginning of the next calendar quarter, the proposal shall be
submitted to the voting members of OASIS, who shall have thirty days to
return a ballot approving or disapproving the proposal.
.....
What does this mean to us?
1. Since we won't have something ready to submit to Karl by September1
(thirty days before October 1), we won't have a spec ready for membership
review October 1.
2. Our next OASIS deadline is December 1. If we submit a spec to Karl by
December 1, then he will send it out for review January 1. The ballot for
OASIS Membership vote will then take place April 1.
3. The timeline of number 2 gives us a nice cushion to get a lot public
comments before it goes out for membership review. According to Karl, the
specification that is sent out for review is the specification that is
balloted with no changes allowed in between.
(Karl: please correct me if I'm wrong)
--lisa
