You are here: The Open Group > The Open Group Conference, San Francisco 2014> Proceedings

The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum (OTTF): Monday

Objective of Meeting

The objective of the OTTF member meeting sessions held on Monday were to discuss:
  • Launch activities for the public announcement of the O-TTPS Accreditation Program (Monday afternoon)
    • Lessons learned from the Pilot O-TTPS Accreditation Program
  • Corrigenda: (1.1) version of the O-TTPS Standard
    • Scope of version 1.1
    • Determining whether Change Requests and Problem Reports were within scope for 1.1 or should be postponed for discussion for 2.0 changes
    • Making recommendations for those CRs within scope for 1.1


Launch of the O-TTPS Accreditation Program

The group discussed the plenary slot – O-TTPS Overview – followed by a discussion panel with Allen Brown and Andras (IBM), Edna (CISCO), Fiona (atsec), Joanne (NASA), and Erin (EWA-Canada). Plaques were provided to IBM for first accredited for their Application, Infrastructure and Middleware (AIM) Software Business Division. Plaques were provided to atsec and EWA-Canada for first O-TTPS Recognized Assessors.Interviews are being lined up (pre and post-launch) with Andras, Fiona, Edna, and Sally. Webcast scheduled for Thursday February 13 with Andras, Edna, Dan, Fiona, and Sally will be presenting. There will be Q&A after the presentation. The session will be recorded.  

Lessons learned from the Pilot were captured and will be posted to the OTTF Plato site. Some of them will need to be addressed via work groups (e.g., simplification of the ISCA Document) – others had been captured already as Problem Reports.

Corrigenda Changes

One of our major focus areas for the Member Meeting in San Francisco on all three days of the member meeting was reaching agreement on recommendations for Change Requests (CRs) to the O-TTPS. We used a spreadsheet with a row for each CR, as the basis for this activity. We recorded whether it was a CR or PR to be included in 1.1 or postponed to 2.0. and if it was to be included in 1.1 then we provided a proposed recommendation. In the spreadsheet there are a variety of submitted CRs:

  • Rows 2-28 are CRs that were submitted to the 1.0 Review Process but were rejected as changes for that now published version and instead recorded for consideration for the next version of the Standard.
  • Rows 29-50 are CRs that were submitted by James Andrews on behalf of the EOC (Evidence of Conformance) Task Group as that group worked through the evidence of conformance – and what would later become the Assessment Procedures.
  • Rows 52-60 are Problem Reports (PRs) that were recently (within the last three months) submitted to the Problem Reporting Process and were categorized as Interpretations – which means they are Problem Reports against the Standard.


The rendering of the CRs and PRs were captured in the Changes for 1.1 worksheet and once cleaned up and edited will be posted to Plato. The suggested changes for 1.1 will be separated from those postponed for 2.0

Next Steps

We will announce to the Forum that we will be doing a version 1.1, ask for any additional change requests, work through the recommendations for those, and then ballot all of the CR recommendations for 1.1. We will then submit to Company Review.



   |   Legal Notices & Terms of Use   |   Privacy Statement   |   Top of Page   Return to Top of Page