Re: [sacm] Call for adoption of draft-coffin-sacm-nea-swid-patnc as a SACM WG document

Hey Tony, funny thing that you should say that.  You seem to have a 
better awareness of the other efforts going on out there than I do, so I 
could use your help in identifying other good candidates and what will 
be necessary to support as many of them as possible.

What I'd really like to do is take a more formal approach -- gather some 
requirements and then see from among the existing efforts which is the 
best from among those that are good enough.  If any.

But first is a matter of setting the requirements.  Stated generally, I 
really only have three:

   1)  Is extensible -- as a fork outside of the current owner, if 
necessary, to be sure it continues to meet SACM needs without relying on 
the good graces of the current owner

   2)  Readily accessible (eg., spec is not cost prohibitive for any users)

   3)  The most complete (that is, closest to being able to represent 
the other tag types without loss of data or shoe-horning data into 
fields that weren't really meant for that type of data)

I'm sure Charles, et al, will have other requirements, so feel free to 
chime in.  However, I think the simpler and more informal we can keep 
this list the quicker we can grind through it.

--gun

On 6/9/2016 2:33 PM, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> A good solution.  Charles and Gunnar should also engage
> in some proactive outreach.  Simply stating that "no other
> solutions to the problem of software identification have
> been submitted" is preposterous when there are so many
> out there.  IMHO, one of the long-standing problems with
> SACM is its institutional and participatory insularity in an
> arena where so many almost identical activities are occurring
> in other venues where there is far greater industry participation.
> Ignoring them diminishes the value of whatever SACM
> accomplishes.
>
> --tony
>
> On 2016-06-09 3:47 PM, Adam Montville wrote:
>> All:
>>
>> After several on-list discussions, the last virtual interim, and the 
>> discussions surrounding this call for adoption, the chairs 
>> acknowledge that there are some key concerns with this draft, but 
>> also see that there is rough consensus for adoption.  We additionally 
>> note that no other solutions to the problem of software 
>> identification have been submitted to the working group [1].
>>
>> Because the topic of software identification, and SWID in particular, 
>> appears to be a contentious one, we are designating Charles Schmidt 
>> and Gunnar Engelbach as editors of the working group draft [2].  We 
>> believe that Charles and Gunnar will bring the necessary balance to 
>> this draft, so that the key concerns are sufficiently addressed.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Adam & Karen
>>
>> [1] This draft adoption does not preclude future alternative submissions
>> [2] Note that original authors will remain authors, but Charles and 
>> Gunnar will hold the pen.
>>
>>
>>> On May 17, 2016, at 11:21 AM, Karen O'Donoghue <odonoghue@isoc.org 
>>> <mailto:odonoghue@isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> As discussed during our last couple of meetings, this is the 
>>> official call for adoption of 
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-coffin-sacm-nea-swid-patnc/ as 
>>> a SACM working group document.
>>>
>>> Please reply with any comments or concerns along your support of 
>>> this action to the mailing list.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Karen and Adam
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sacm mailing list
>>> sacm@ietf.org <mailto:sacm@ietf.org>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sacm mailing list
>> sacm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sacm mailing list
> sacm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm