← Prev in month
← Prev in thread
RE: [kmip] Public Review of KMIP Specifications
Robert, Thanks for looking into this. I’ll be glad to use JIRA for technical comments if others agree. Bob, Are we going to configure JIRA for each document? Do you know who has the admin rights to JIRA that can do this? Thanks, Scott From: Robert Haas [mailto:] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 9:46 AM To: Scott Kipp Cc: ; ; OASIS TAB Subject: RE: [kmip] Public Review of KMIP Specifications Scott, Bob, I checked the excel template Scott proposed to record the comments from the public review. I also looked at the jira issue tracker (I pasted the help window below). I think we should use jira as it is more comprehensive, provided that: - non-TC members can also enter comments, but it seems that only TC members can use jira, so someone from the TC will have to do that on their behalf, and - jira is configured to have the right projects/components (one for each of the docs) and issue types (ie 60-day public review comment), but I don't have admin rights to change that. (see http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/KMIP?report=select) For purely editorial comments, it is probably an overkill asking the commenters to enter a jira issue for each one of them. In this case I'd suggest that an email to the list is sufficient. Regards, -Robert JIRA - Local help JIRA tracks issues, which can be bugs, feature requests, or any other tasks you want to track. Each issue has a variety of associated information including: the issue type a summary a description of the issue the project which the issue belongs to components within a project which are associated with this issue versions of the project which are affected by this issue versions of the project which will resolve the issue the environment in which it occurs a priority for being fixed an assigned developer to work on the task a reporter - the user who entered the issue into the system the current status of the issue a full history log of all field changes that have occurred a comment trail added by users if the issue is resolved - the resolution Issue Types JIRA can be used to track many different types of issues. The currently defined issue types are listed below. In addition, you can add more in the administration section. For Regular Issues 15-day Public Review 60-day Public Review Approved Errata Bug A problem which impairs or prevents the functions of the product. CS Ballot Chair Election Charter Clarification Ballot Closing a TC Create Subcommittee Discussion List Document Upload Errata Review Improvement An improvement or enhancement to an existing feature or task. Informal Public Review New Feature A new feature of the product, which has yet to be developed. New TC Charter Submission OS Submission OS Submission Ballot TC Close Task A task that needs to be done. For Sub-Task Issues Sub-task The sub-task of the issue Priority Levels An issue has a priority level which indicates its importance. The currently defined priorities are listed below. In addition, you can add more priority levels in the administration section. Blocker Blocks development and/or testing work, production could not run. Critical Crashes, loss of data, severe memory leak. Major Major loss of function. Minor Minor loss of function, or other problem where easy workaround is present. Trivial Cosmetic problem like misspelt words or misaligned text. Statuses Each issue has a status, which indicates the stage of the issue. In the default workflow, issues start as being Open, progressing to In Progress, Resolved and then Closed. Other workflows may have other status transitions. Open The issue is open and ready for the assignee to start work on it. In Progress This issue is being actively worked on at the moment by the assignee. Reopened This issue was once resolved, but the resolution was deemed incorrect. From here issues are either marked assigned or resolved. Resolved A resolution has been taken, and it is awaiting verification by reporter. From here issues are either reopened, or are closed. Closed The issue is considered finished, the resolution is correct. Issues which are closed can be reopened. New Deferred Applied submission review document check QC of document(s) document upload upload/testing of files at docs.oasis-open.org announce announcement to members or TC familiarization announce member ballot creation/announce member ballot results announce TC hold TC ballot launch DCR dependencies hold create kavi group charter review call for nominations member charter review convener call final charter/log submission Call for Participation capture voting roster first meeting create mail list close mail list close kavi group charter upload document update Resolutions An issue can be resolved in many ways, only one of them being "Fixed". The defined resolutions are listed below. You can add more in the administration section. Fixed A fix for this issue is checked into the tree and tested. Won't Fix The problem described is an issue which will never be fixed. Duplicate The problem is a duplicate of an existing issue. Incomplete The problem is not completely described. Cannot Reproduce All attempts at reproducing this issue failed, or not enough information was available to reproduce the issue. Reading the code produces no clues as to why this behavior would occur. If more information appears later, please reopen the issue. Unresolved Applied No Action Invalid Later From: Scott Kipp <> To: Mary McRae <> Cc: "" <>, OASIS TAB <> Date: 12/14/2009 02:39 PM Subject: RE: [kmip] Public Review of KMIP Specifications Bob Griffin, Should we just email a list of comments to the reflector then? I have seen standards bodies do this but I don't think it works very well. Kind regards, Scott -----Original Message----- From: Mary McRae [mailto:] Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 12:59 PM To: Scott Kipp Cc: ; OASIS TAB Subject: Re: [kmip] Public Review of KMIP Specifications Hi Scott, The only requirement is that all feedback from TC members must be made on the TC email list. Note that creating an issue in JIRA automatically sends an email to the list so that requirement is addressed. As far as determining a methodology for JIRA setup and use, I can only point you to other TCs that are using JIRA to manage the process; you should feel free to contact any of the chairs for more details. On the OASIS internal issues tracker, CMIS and ODF are probably the two most prolific. The SCA TCs have an externally-hosted JIRA system they use (they were using it prior to coming to OASIS and we did not yet have our own installation in place); you can see it at http://www.osoa.org/jira/secure/Dashboard.jspa There is a lot of wonderful documentation on the atlassian site. http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira/docs/v3.13.1/introduction.html Mary On Dec 11, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Scott Kipp wrote: > Hello Mary, > > I was trying to understand the process of how we submit comments as members. I asked this yesterday and didn't hear to use JIRA. I expect many people to review this thoroughly for the first time and submit many comments. > > We have been informal in how we resolved comments up until now and I think this could be problematic if we are inundated with hundreds of comments like in Indra's attached email. If these comments or any comments were entered in JIRA, I never heard about it. > > How do we use the JIRA issue tracking system? How do we make documents a "component"? > > Are the editors going to enter JIRA issues for each comment from non-TC members? > > Thanks, > Scott > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mary McRae [mailto:] > Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 1:51 PM > To: Scott Kipp > Cc: ; OASIS TAB > Subject: Re: [kmip] Public Review of KMIP Specifications > > Hi Scott, > > I'm not sure who you're addressing your message to. Non-TC members will submit their comments via the TC comment list as required by the OASIS TC Process. TC members can make use of the JIRA issue tracking system - just make each of the documents a 'component' and that will allow for easy sorting/filtering. For comments received via the comment list, someone on the TC would need to create a corresponding issue. > > The ODF TC actually posts a periodic note to the comment list which lets people know that their comments will be entered into the issues tracker and that they can track their status themselves. > > I haven't seen this to be a big issue with most TCs; maybe you're anticipating many more issues to be raised. In any case, the TC is required to produce a comment resolution log which includes the comment submitter, brief description of the issue, and its resolution before moving forward to the next level of approval. Again, this can be easily generated out of JIRA. > > I hope that helps. > > Regards, > > Mary > > > > > > On Dec 10, 2009, at 12:49 PM, Scott Kipp wrote: > >> Dear KMIP Commenters, >> >> I'm involved in five standards organizations and there is no standard way to submit comments across these bodies. Since we are in the process of reviewing 4 documents by tens of companies, tracking and resolving comments (probably hundreds and possibly thousands) in many formats across the four documents could be very time consuming for the group and especially the editors. If some companies submit comments in pdf, others in word and some in html, we will have a difficult time tracking the resolution of comments. >> >> I propose that we use the attached spreadsheet to submit comments against the pdf version of the document. The spreadsheet has a separate worksheet for each document so that each editor can individually address their comments. >> >> The comments are split into technical and editorial. Editorial comments are basic grammatical corrections that editors don't need the group input on. Technical comments require the groups input and approval for inclusion. >> >> I have provided two sample comments to explain the process. You should add the name of your company in place of the "Company Name" in the first column so that you will be able to track your comments through the process. Then label the comment technical (T) or Editorial (E) in the second column. The next three columns identify the location of the comment. Then you need to add the description of the comment and the proposed solution of the comment. >> >> During comment resolution, the editor or chair of the document will include the resolution and we'll be able to track and understand what happened to the comment. This tracking is very important because I have been in some standards that take a year to resolve comments and this spreadsheet helps track the comments down after many moons. There is also a Status worksheet that can summarize how many technical comments we have and how many have been resolved or deferred. >> >> I hope we can resolve our comments quicker than many months and this spreadsheet will help. This is one way to track comments and I am open to tracking them in a different manner. We should agree to use one method. >> >> Any other suggestions or can we agree to use this spreadsheet? >> >> Thanks, >> Scott Kipp >> Standards Jockey >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mary McRae [mailto:] >> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 10:48 PM >> To: ; >> Cc: ; OASIS TAB >> Subject: [kmip] Public Review of KMIP Specifications >> >> To OASIS members, Public Announce Lists: >> >> The OASIS Key Management Interoperability Protocol (KMIP) TC has recently approved the following specifications as Committee Drafts and approved them for public review: >> >> Key Management Interoperability Protocol Specification Version 1.0 >> Key Management Interoperability Protocol Profiles Version 1.0 >> Key Management Interoperability Protocol Use Cases Version 1.0 >> Key Management Interoperability Protocol Usage Guide Version 1.0 >> >> The public review starts today, 1 December 2009, and ends 30 January 2010. This is an open invitation to comment. We strongly encourage feedback from potential users, developers and others, whether OASIS members or not, for the sake of improving the interoperability and quality of OASIS work. We also welcome interested parties to join the KMIP TC as it continues work on the next version of KMIP in such areas as asymmetric profiles, server-to-server communication, and other important areas. Please feel free to distribute this announcement within your organization and to other appropriate mail lists. >> >> More non-normative information about the specification and the technical committee may be found at the public home page of the TC at: >> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=kmip. Comments may be submitted to the TC by any person through the use of the OASIS TC Comment Facility which can be located via the button marked "Send A Comment" at the top of that page, or directly at: >> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/index.php?wg_abbrev=kmip. >> >> Submitted comments (for this work as well as other works of that TC) are publicly archived and can be viewed at: >> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/kmip-comment/. All comments submitted to OASIS are subject to the OASIS Feedback License, which ensures that the feedback you provide carries the same obligations at least as the obligations of the TC members. >> >> The specification document and related files are available here: >> >> Key Management Interoperability Protocol Specification Version 1.0 >> Editable Source: (Authoritative) >> http://docs.oasis-open.org/kmip/spec/v1.0/cd06/kmip-spec-1.0-cd-06.doc >> PDF: >> http://docs.oasis-open.org/kmip/spec/v1.0/cd06/kmip-spec-1.0-cd-06.pdf >> HTML: >> http://docs.oasis-open.org/kmip/spec/v1.0/cd06/kmip-spec-1.0-cd-06.html >> >> >> Key Management Interoperability Protocol Profiles Version 1.0 >> Editable Source: (Authoritative) >> http://docs.oasis-open.org/kmip/profiles/v1.0/cd04/kmip-profiles-1.0-cd-04.doc >> PDF: >> http://docs.oasis-open.org/kmip/profiles/v1.0/cd04/kmip-profiles-1.0-cd-04.pdf >> HTML: >> http://docs.oasis-open.org/kmip/profiles/v1.0/cd04/kmip-profiles-1.0-cd-04.html >> >> >> Key Management Interoperability Protocol Use Cases Version 1.0 >> Editable Source: (Authoritative) >> http://docs.oasis-open.org/kmip/usecases/v1.0/cd05/kmip-usecases-1.0-cd-05.doc >> PDF: >> http://docs.oasis-open.org/kmip/usecases/v1.0/cd05/kmip-usecases-1.0-cd-05.pdf >> HTML: >> http://docs.oasis-open.org/kmip/usecases/v1.0/cd05/kmip-usecases-1.0-cd-05.html >> >> >> Key Management Interoperability Protocol Usage Guide Version 1.0 >> Editable Source: (Authoritative) >> http://docs.oasis-open.org/kmip/ug/v1.0/cd05/kmip-ug-1.0-cd-05.doc >> PDF: >> http://docs.oasis-open.org/kmip/ug/v1.0/cd05/kmip-ug-1.0-cd-05.pdf >> HTML: >> http://docs.oasis-open.org/kmip/ug/v1.0/cd05/kmip-ug-1.0-cd-05.html >> >> >> OASIS and the KMIP TC welcome your comments. >> >> >> Mary P McRae >> Director, Standards Development >> Technical Committee Administrator >> OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society >> email: >> web: www.oasis-open.org >> twitter: @fiberartisan #oasisopen >> phone: 1.603.232.9090 >> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: >> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >> >> <KMIP Comments Template.xls>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: >> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > <[kmip] Comments and potential additions to the Usage Guide.eml> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
← Prev in month
← Prev in thread