[DFDL-WG] Call minutes for 2024-04-18

[Mike Beckerle]

+1 for create a separate private repo from me.

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 3:54 PM Sill, Alan <Alan.Sill at ttu.edu> wrote:

> We're still proceeding on the assumption that new versions or revisions to
> the spec will be developed under OGF, and only when ready for submission to
> ISO would we go to them with a new version. But I do think we should
> respect their restrictions regarding not making the ISO-published versions
> publicly accessible. So we should create a private repository for the
> restricted documents to keep them off of the public Internet, but I don't
> see any need for other adjustments yet.
>
> Does this sound like a good approach?
>
> Thanks,
> Alan
>
>
> On Apr 18, 2024, at 2:49 PM, Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle at apache.org> wrote:
>
> Yeah, reconciling the OGF processes with any ISO requirements is a
> next step, as is updating various pages to call out the ISO/PAS
> relationship and correspondence of GFD.240 with ISO/IEC 23415:2024.
>
> re: "given the ISO restrictions" you are referring to the limited access
> restrictions on the proof copy of the spec? Or something else?
>
> If you think any OGF working docs pre-drafts we create can be public, but
> ISO-flavor-thereof should not be (for brand protection or just control
> reasons), then yes we need a private repo for that.
>
> There's more issues like this. On the DFDL call today on our agenda is
> always the statement that everything must follow the OGF Intellectual
> Property rules, but that raises the concern of how does that need to evolve
> for us to smoothly interoperate with ISO also? Does the reminder statement
> need to change? As part of setting up OGF as a PAS submitter I am sure you
> guys worked through a bunch of this stuff. We need the short course on your
> conclusions from that analysis. (If this is written up anywhere I can RTFM)
>
> I think the w3c pas faq is helpful: https://www.w3.org/2010/04/pasfaq
> We need something like this.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 12:56 PM Sill, Alan <Alan.Sill at ttu.edu> wrote:
>
>> Good day Mike,
>>
>> OGF's processes are public, but given the ISO restrictions, should we
>> make a private repository on GitHub and move the ISO-process folder in
>> that? You can then share access to that to the DFDL group only. (I believe
>> the current DFDL repository is public.)
>>
>> Let me know what you think.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> On Apr 18, 2024, at 11:45 AM, Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle at apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> This email originated outside TTU. Please exercise caution
>> <https://askit.ttu.edu/phishing>!
>>
>> Call minutes are here:
>> https://github.com/OpenGridForum/DFDL/blob/master/calls/2024/2024-04-18_DFDL-WG-Call.md
>>
>> A proof-copy of the ISO version of the DFDL spec is here:
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/OpenGridForum/DFDL/blob/master/ISO-process/ISO_IEC%2023415_2024%20ed.1%20-%20id.87444%20Publication%20PDF%20(en)-ASill-MBeckerle.pdf
>>
>> The name reflects that the file is watermarked and for A.Sill/M.Beckerle,
>> not for general distribution.
>>
>> Mike Beckerle
>> Apache Daffodil PMC | daffodil.apache.org
>> OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair |
>> www.ogf.org/ogf/doku.php/standards/dfdl/dfdl
>> Owl Cyber Defense | www.owlcyberdefense.com
>>
>>
>> --
>>  dfdl-wg mailing list
>>  dfdl-wg at lists.ogf.org
>>  https://lists.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg
>>
>>
>> --
>>   dfdl-wg mailing list
>>   dfdl-wg at lists.ogf.org
>>   https://lists.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg
>>
>
> --
>   dfdl-wg mailing list
>   dfdl-wg at lists.ogf.org
>   https://lists.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 6683 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ogf.org/pipermail/dfdl-wg/attachments/20240418/85332bfc/attachment.txt>