| Sorry Mike,
I thought those had been fixed quite a while ago. Will try to get them updated tonight.
On Nov 16, 2010, at 4:54 PM, Mike Jones wrote: Hi Mary, I don’t need to be a nag, but the links in RDDL files have been broken for over two months and it’s probably under a five minute job to copy the attached files into the right places to fix them. Could you please do so or have one of your staff do it this week? Thanks, -- Mike From: Mike Jones
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 4:36 PM
To: 'Mary McRae'
Cc: imi@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: Fixing incorrect links in IMI SAML profile documents Thanks, -- Mike From: Mary McRae [mailto:mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 5:14 PM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: imi@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: Fixing incorrect links in IMI SAML profile documents Hi Mike, We (TC Admin) automatically update CDs upon successful completion of a CS ballot to CS status. We do it for a number of reasons: first, it's quicker for all involved, and second, it ensures that links are properly updated and that nothing other than what is allowed to be updated is changed. Thank you for picking up on the RDDL errors! I will swap those files out. In the actual specs, however, you can't update those references since you didn't include a designated cross reference as part of the motion to approve as CS. The TC Process is very specific about exactly what can be changed upon approval at any level: "Any change made to a specification requires a new version or revision number, except for changes made to (a) the approval status, (b) the date, (c) the URIs of the specification as appropriate, (d) the running header/footer, and (e) any approved Designated Cross-Reference Changes, all of which must be made after the approval of the specification as a Committee Draft, Committee Specification, or OASIS Standard." If you want the cross-references to match, you can request new ballots to be run, this time including a designated cross-reference motion for each. If the TC is interested in doing that and would like further assistance crafting the actual motion text, just let me know. Or, if the specs will be submitted for OS ballot, the cross-reference motion could be included at that time so the resulting OSs would match. First, in the RDDL documents, all the specification links are wrong. Here’s diffs between the old and new ones: c:\mbj\DSG\IMI TC>diff "imi SAML cs docs as posted 31-Aug-10" imi-saml1.1-profile-rddl-201007-cs-01.html 76,77c76,77 --- 93c93 --- 96c96 --- 99c99 --- c:\mbj\DSG\IMI TC>diff "imi SAML cs docs as posted 31-Aug-10" imi-saml2.0-profile-rddl-201007-cs-01.html 76,77c76,77 --- 93c93 --- 96c96 --- 99c99 --- In imi-saml1.1-profile-cs-01.doc, there are two incorrect passages that weren’t present in the versions I submitted, so I’m not sure how they crept in. It looks like they were copied from the previous draft. Specifically, in the “Related work” section on p. 1, the last related specification in the posted draft reads: · OASIS Committee Draft, “SAML V2.0 Information Card Token Profile Version 1.0”, July 2010. http://docs.oasis-open.org/imi/identity/cd/imi-saml2.0-profile-cd-03.pdf when it should say: · OASIS Committee Specification, “SAML V2.0 Information Card Token Profile Version 1.0”, July 2010. http://docs.oasis-open.org/imi/identity/cs/imi-saml2.0-profile-cs-01.pdf Likewise, in Section 1.4, the last non-normative reference in the posted draft reads: [SAML2IMI] OASIS Committee Draft, “SAML V2.0 Information Card Token Profile Version 1.0”, July 2010. http://docs.oasis-open.org/imi/identity/cd/imi-saml2.0-profile-cd-03.pdf when it should say: [SAML2IMI] OASIS Committee Specification, “SAML V2.0 Information Card Token Profile Version 1.0”, July 2010. http://docs.oasis-open.org/imi/identity/cs/imi-saml2.0-profile-cs-01.pdf The corresponding errors are also present in the posted version of In imi-saml2.0-profile-cs-01.doc. In the “Related work” section on p. 1, the last related specification in the posted draft reads: · OASIS Committee Draft, “SAML V1.1 Information Card Token Profile Version 1.0”, July 2010. http://docs.oasis-open.org/imi/identity/cd/imi-saml1.1-profile-cd-02.pdf when it should say: · OASIS Committee Specification, “SAML V1.1 Information Card Token Profile Version 1.0”, July 2010. http://docs.oasis-open.org/imi/identity/cs/imi-saml1.1-profile-cs-01.pdf Likewise, in Section 1.4, the last non-normative reference in the posted draft reads: [SAML1.1IMI] OASIS Committee Draft, “SAML V1.1 Information Card Token Profile Version 1.0”, July 2010. http://docs.oasis-open.org/imi/identity/cd/imi-saml1.1-profile-cd-02.pdf when it should say: [SAML1.1IMI] OASIS Committee Specification, “SAML V1.1 Information Card Token Profile Version 1.0”, July 2010. http://docs.oasis-open.org/imi/identity/cs/imi-saml1.1-profile-cs-01.pdf The other change made to both documents, that also looks like it was a result of copying from the previous drafts, rather than using the ones that I submitted, was deletion of this line of the revision history in appendix B: cs-01 | 21 July 2010 | Michael B. Jones | Committee Specification. |
Picking up the versions of the RDDL, doc, pdf, and HTML files that I uploaded this morning will address all of these issues and introduce no other changes. Thanks again, -- Mike Hi Mike, Can you tell me where the problems are with the uploaded specs? I'm pretty sure Kim prepared these and I'm not seeing any problems. Mary Hi Mary, Thanks again! -- Mike
--
Mary P McRae
OASIS
Director, Standards Development Member Section Administrator
--
Mary P McRae
OASIS
Director, Standards Development Member Section Administrator
|