RE: [wss] OASIS submission ballot invalid? Re: [wss] WSS TC ballots - second reminder

There is a saying that I believe holds in our present 
situation – “The perfect is the enemy of the good”.  Is this spec. perfect, No; Will this 
spec ever be perfect, No.  But I 
believe that this spec is good.  We 
have a responsibility to release a specification that can be used for Web 
Services security and I believe that we have such a specification.  As this technology is used by the 
outside world, faults that we have not thought of may be uncovered.  To put this in perspective, some faults 
in other security protocols were not uncovered until years after their first 
release.

 

This does not mean that we should release a spec that has known 
weaknesses.  I don’t believe that 
this is the case here.   Jerry 
listed one change that was discussed in e-mail and telecom and agreed upon.  I don’t think that this change is 
substantive enough to pull the spec at this point, but the vote of the TC will 
determine that.  No other problems 
with the spec. have been brought up as substantive.

 

Don  

 

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Kelvin Lawrence 
  [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 10:29 
  AM
To: Jeff Mischkinsky
Cc: 
  
Subject: Re: [wss] OASIS submission ballot 
  invalid? Re: [wss] WSS TC ballots - second 
  reminder

Jeff, before the 
  votes were setup, over the past several meetings, there have been many 
  discussions at the TC meetings as to whether or not the TC members felt that 
  there needed to be a second interop. After discussion in the TC it was not 
  felt necessary as the changes were not substantive and the TC remained 
  comfortable that the work done to date was sufficient. All of these 
  discussions can be found in the WSS TC minutes archive at [1] . 
   Furthermore, no one is on record prior to now as having asked for 
  another review phase either. This change that is being cited has been in the 
  spec since Dec 16th. So far other than a couple of general comments, no one 
  has cited concrete examples of substantive changes. 

We also discussed at length the creation of these votes 
  and how they would work. We even delayed voting a week to give folks more time 
  to prepare. Also, the  change that has been raised as "reason for another 
  public review"  was made to the document, as I mentioned, on 12/16/2003 
  (over a month ago) - and only now is this objection being raised - during the 
  last business day before the vote closes. 

 It is my firm belief that the changes made are not substantial 
  enough to require a full second review cycle. As co-chair if I felt otherwise 
  I would not myself be supporting this work moving forward at this time. As I 
  said  no member has asked for a second public review until now. As I have 
  said on the record many times, I recognize the need to both deliver this spec 
  to the industry in a timely manner but also not at the expense of quality. I 
  personally believe we have reached the point now where it is right to proceed. 
  But again this is for the TC and not me to decide and hence we have the 
  current votes underway. 

As to the 
  votes being out of order, not at all, they are totally in line with the OASIS 
  process of a committee draft vote followed by vote of all voting to advance 
  the work. The creation of the votes was approved by a unanimous vote of the TC 
  members at our last meeting and no one raised objection.  As to the work 
  progressing, this is for the TC to decide by vote under the rules laid out in 
  the process document at [2]. We will have to see how the vote comes out and 
  what the wish of the TC is and then the TC will discuss and at the upcoming 
  meeting. 

[1] 
  http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/wss/minutes.php 
[2] 
  http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#standard 

Cheers
Kelvin 
WSS TC co-Chair

Jeff Mischkinsky 
  <> wrote on 01/22/2004 11:11:59 
  PM:

> Hi,
>    Not to be a procedural wonk, but 
  doesn't this mean that the second 
> ballot is "out of order" and 
  "invalid"? Assuming the first ballot passes, 
> then there needs to be 
  another public review, and no substantive changes as 
> a result of that 
  review, before that document can be proposed as an OASIS 
> 
  standard?
>     cheers,
>     
   jeff
> 
> At 08:40 PM 1/22/2004, Ron Monzillo wrote:
> 
  >Jerry,
> >
> >I share your opinion that substantive 
  changes were made to the spec,
> >and that we should conduct another 
  review cycle.
> >
> >Therefore, I have also voted NO on the 
  ballot "Submit to OASIS for final 
> >approval ?".
> 
  >
> >Ron
> >
> >Jerry Schwarz wrote:
> 
  >
> >>At 02:06 PM 1/21/2004, Kelvin Lawrence wrote:
> 
  >>
> >>>Apparently the system failed to send the 
  automatic reminder it was 
> >>>supposed to send today so I am 
  sending another reminder to you all to 
> >>>vote in the 
  currently open ballots.
> >>>
> >>>We are now 
  more than half-way through the work week and a great many of 
> 
  >>>us have yet to vote - please do vote soon so we can begin 
  collating the 
> >>>results prior to our TC call next week. 
  Many thanks!
> >>>
> >>>I will send a final 
  reminder later in the week.
> >>>
> 
  >>>Cheers
> >>>Kelvin
> >>
> 
  >>
> >>FYI. I have just voted yes on making this a CD, but 
  no on submitting for 
> >>final with the comment attached 
  below.
> >>
> >>-----------------
> 
  >>Oracle believes that there have been too many changes to the documents 
  to 
> >>advance it to final status another public review 
  period.
> >>
> >>According to the OASIS Procedures. " 
  If substantive changes are made to 
> >>the specification after 
  the start of the public review then the TC should 
> >>conduct 
  another review cycle".
> >>
> >>I will cite as one 
  instance of a substantive change the change from QName 
> >>to URI 
  for the valuetype attributes.
> >>
> 
  >>------------------------
> >>
> >>Rereading 
  the comment I see a missing "without" and a typo. The first 
> 
  >>sentence should read
> >>
> >>"Oracle believes 
  that there have been too many changes to the documents 
> >>to 
  advance them to final status without another public review period."
> 
  >>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster 
  of 
> >>the OASIS TC), go to 
> 
  >>http://www.oasis-open.
> 
  org/apps/org/workgroup/wss/members/leave_workgroup.php.
> >
> 
  >
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe from this mailing 
  list (and be removed from the roster of 
> >the OASIS TC), go to 
  
> 
  >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wss/members/leave_workgroup.php.
> 
  >
> 
> Jeff Mischkinsky           
             
> 
  Consulting Member Technical Staff     +1(650)506-1975
> 
  Director, Web Services Standards      500 Oracle Parkway M/S 
  4OP9
> Oracle Corporation             
         Redwood Shores, CA 94065
> 
> 
> 
  To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the 
> roster 
  of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.
> 
  org/apps/org/workgroup/wss/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>