OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-poc message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: Minutes 21-Dec2000 POC Conf-call

Sorry for the delayed posting.  Participants were:

Sharad Agarwal
Sid Askary
Joseph Baran
Jim Clark 
Philippe DeSmedt
Bill Dunigan
Jacques Durand
Mark Hale
Sigmund Handelman
Michael Joya
Ravi Krakar
Dale Moberg
Raghu Rajah
Yoshi Russell
Saikat Saha
Krishna Sankar
Stefan Schulz
Prasad Yendluri

Apologies if I missed (or misspelled) anyone.

**NOTE**  I received a few emails complaining of an inability to get on the
call.  Can we please expand the lines to 25 (usually, if they are not used
there is no charge).

We welcomed our new members:  

	Commerce One, Cyclone, Internet Commerce Systems, Kildara, 


Update from STC and TRP:

-  Sid updated the team on the timeline discussions in STC and TRP regarding
getting the TRP spec before the TRP f2f, so that there is time for comments.
We need to provide TRP our feedback.


-  Prasad raised the issue of interoperability with cpp without security and

-  Krishna commented that his efforts in the reg/rep are in line with the
security-team's effort and they address a different area of application
security altogether.

-  Sid raised the fact that too many flavors of security cause problems of
interoperability during the upcoming POCs.   

-  Philippe said that this is something that the TRP is leaving to the

-  Dale saw no issues with agreeing on one particular security
implementation ahead of time.

-  Ravi, along with a few others, raised their concern that any options in
the spec - in particular the variations in Security, become mandatory
feature set provisions, which an ebXML vendor MUST implement.

-  Krishna, Sid, Dale and others who are interested will contact the
security WG (not a separate side activity).


-  There are two proposals submitted by BP/CC and a third one from Dale.

-  Mark raised the issue that there does not seem to be a convergence on the
proposals.  The fact that the same group has put two different proposals
forward is a concern.  A better approach would have been to combine the two.

-  Jim Clark, a co-author on both proposals, said that one is an addendum to
the other.  This was done in the interest of time to meet the deadline for
submission. The two would eventually be combined.

-  Mark and Sid also raised the issue of "Corporate Sponsors" as being
inappropriate in the context of a POC proposal.  There is a style that
previous proposals have adhered to.

-  It appeared that the first BP/CC proposal would be more appropriate for
London.  For one thing, the Specs for BP/CC will be more advance.  For
another, the scenario covers an industry (Telecom) whose BP has a
significant support in Europe.

-  Sig also mentioned that AIAG is interested in pursuing a Demo further,
but the response from most of the participants was that AIAG was
demonstrated in Tokyo and thus is not a suitable candidate for the upcoming
POC effort.

-  Mark mentioned that He is trying to put together a discussion group focus
on XML-One in London only.  He will do that after the holidays.  

-  Most participants felt that for Vancouver, we should focus on
infrastructure issues.  However, the notion of remote testing was brought up
again.  Michael Joya said that he could have a CA server ready very quickly,
but that the overall requirements for a remote server with test harnesses
was not clear.  

-  We are going to take a look at Dale's proposal that was submitted late on
that day to determine where we want to go.  Most agree that a technically
oriented POC with focus on security, R/R and CPP is the way to go for

Agenda for next call on Jan 4th:

-  Do we have a winner (or a set of winners) for Vancouver?

-  State of conformance, remote testing.

-  Response to the TRP's latest specs.

-  A workable security model (al least for the TRP) implementation.

-  Where are we with regards to London?  

My thought is "let's not have yet another separate subgroup for our demos,
security, etc., let's keep everything on the table".

Happy New Year

Sid Askary

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC