Re: [P1619-3] New P1619.3 project plan
Scott,
First, the motion that we made to SISWG to vote is only a recommendation and is not binding within SISWG. For a binding motion, the motion would need to be made in a SISWG plenary meeting with a quorum of members. The recommendation was returned to us by SISWG with a recommendation that we limit the scope of the vote. At yesterday's meeting we unanimously agreed to submit the following question for a vote of SISWG:
"Shall P1619.3 require one mandatory messaging protocol and zero or more optional messaging protocols to insure interoperability between key management clients and key management servers?"
That ballot is being set up now by Matt Ball and Eric Hibbard, who are the officers of SISWG.
-Walt
---
Walt Hubis
Software Architect
Engenio Storage Group
LSI Corporation
5400 Airport Blvd Ste 100
Boulder, Colorado 80301 USA
Phone: (303) 381-4332
Mobile: (303) 641-8528
walt.hubis@xxxxxxx
http://www.lsi.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Kipp [mailto:skipp@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 7:55 AM
To: Hubis, Walt; P1619-3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [P1619-3] New P1619.3 project plan
Walt or Matt,
Could you give us a status on the 30 Day SISWG Ballot on SOAP?
I'll quote the minutes from the 2008-08-06 meeting:
Subhash moves to start a 30-day SISWG ballot to proprose that P1619.3
use SOAP XML as the messaging language and WSDL as the grammar language.
James seconds the motion.
Because there was not unanimous approval of motion, a roll-call was
performed:
Yes - Walt Hubis, LSI Logic
Yes - Matt Ball, Sun Microsystem
Not present - Michael Marcil, Vormetric
Yes - Subhash Sankuratripati, NetApp
Yes- James FitzGerald, SafeNet
Yes - Luther Martin, Voltage
No - Kevin Marks, Dell
Yes - Thomas Hardjono, Wave Systems
Abstain - Chris Williams, HP
6 Yes, 1 No, 1 abstain. The motion passes. This will start a 30-day
letter ballot at the SISWG level.
(Note: The votes in this roll-call do not mean approval of SOAP XML, but
rather approval of hearing the question at the SISWG level.)
I don't understand if this vote was improper or delayed or what. The
1619.3 group pretty much agreed to have this letter ballot and I'm
wondering if the same thing can happen to what we voted on yesterday.
Thanks,
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: Hubis, Walt [mailto:Walt.Hubis@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 8:20 AM
To: P1619-3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [P1619-3] New P1619.3 project plan
Martin,
I've been waiting for the dust to settle on this issue a bit before
committing time to an effort that I know will change. I think we can now
make some assumptions regarding this effort. Look for this by our next
meeting.
-Walt
---
Walt Hubis
Software Architect
Engenio Storage Group
LSI Corporation
5400 Airport Blvd Ste 100
Boulder, Colorado 80301 USA
Phone: (303) 381-4332
Mobile: (303) 641-8528
walt.hubis@xxxxxxx
http://www.lsi.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Luther Martin [mailto:martin@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 7:37 PM
To: Hubis, Walt; P1619-3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: New P1619.3 project plan
It certainly looks like P1619.3 is not moving forward at the pace that
it once was. When can we expect to see a revised project plan that
reflects this new rate of progress?