[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Changes for: RE: [regrep] Vote on version 2.03 - ACTION ITEM
Some changes complete- see below. Please provide opinions in regards to
the “catalog”, “SAML”, and “federated registeries” requested changes. Thanks, -Anne -----Original
Message----- I cast Intel's formal position on this
TC specification vote as "Abstain." I note the following ISSUES with the
v2.03 ebRS. I mean the following comment in only a constructive
manner. Can authors and editors please run a spell checker on these
specifications prior to calling for a vote against them. Compiling these
took <1 hour. Not correcting them continues to support the "less
than able to quality" assertion that I have made previously. Appendix A: the references to the WSDL
files now be against the v2.1 files: i.e., http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/regrep/documents/2.1/services/Registry.wsdl and http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/regrep/documents/2.1/services/RegistrySOAPBinding.wsdl, respectively [aaf]: This was purposely
left to be changed upon approval of v2.1. It will be updated after the vote. line 3696:3697: I still believe that
this specification should NOT mandate digital signature for all content per the
statement "The Registry Client has to sign the contents before submission -
otherwise the content will be rejected." line 3733:3734: I have the same
objection to mandating digital signatures on payloads per the text "This
packaging assumes that the payload is always signed." [aaf]: The previous two issues are v3.0 issues and are not appropriate
changes for v2.1 line 3876:3877: Should the second
occurrence of public key in the following sentence, "To
validate a signature, the recipient of the signature needs the public key
corresponding to the signer's public key.,"
actually be private key? If not then something else seems very awkward
about this sentence. [aaf]: “signer’s public key” changed to “signer’s private key” The use of “public” was a
technical inaccuracy. line 3916: "privelege"
should be "privilege"
[aaf]: Done line 3933: "someRegistry"
should be "some Registry" [aaf]:
Done line 4041: "implementors"
should be "implementers" [aaf]:
Done line 4143:
"catalogs" should be "catalog" [aaf] Disagree. The sentence is: “The Registry SQL query capability supports the ability to search
for content based not only on metadata that catalogs the content but also the
data contained within the content itself.” The recommended change is from “catalogs” to “catalog”,
however, I think this depends on whether you read “metadata” as being singular
or plural. I checked Webster’s and
the plural of data is data.
Opinions? Would adding a comma after each use of “content” help to make the sentence
more readable? Would it be
grammatically correct? line 4218: "specificiation"
should be "specification" [aaf]:
Done line 4279: "privilges"
should be "privileges" [aaf]:
Done line 4376:
"maximuminter-operability" should be "maximum
interoperability" [aaf]: Done line 4252: SAML is mentioned but is
not listed as a reference in Section 10
[aaf]: This is in section F.1 Security Concerns -#4. Since this is in an appendix, detailed information is not
required. line 4253: "releveant" should be "relevant" [aaf]:
Done line 4254: "federated
registries" is mentioned here but has never been defined, described, or
mentioned anywhere else [aaf]: This is in section F.1
Security Concerns -#4a. Since this
is in an appendix, detailed information is not required. line 4521: "implementors"
should be "implementers" [aaf]:
Done Joel -----Original
Message----- TC, Attached is the final version of the RS v2.03 for your review
and vote. Please submit your vote for approval, or disapproval by EOB
June 17th. If approved, this will be posted on our Registry TC as a TC
approved document, and will be renamed as v2.1 as noted by Anne below. We
will also have an agenda item during our telecon to discuss this. Kathryn -----Original
Message----- All, Here
is the final version - currently labled ebRS v2.03. Once again, two copies..."ebRS v2.03 changes in
view" and "ebRS v2.03 changes NOT in view". Upon
approval by the TC, this version will be renamed v2.1. -Anne
Fischer Listed
below are the changes in ebRS v2.03: -
lines 3608, 3609, 3617, 3627: added urn:uuid prefix in id attribute in section
8.4.2 example -
lines 692, 969, 1010, 1038, 1069: correct spelling of "Uavailable" -
line 1000: change "updated" to "approved" -
line 1028: change "updated" to "deprecated" -
lines 1148, 1149: change "is done via contentURI as explained in Section
8.4" to "is accomplished using the technique explained in Section
8.4" -
lines 1150, 1151: Take out "the whole hierarchy of"? -
lines 2162, 2394, 2614; In order to be consistent with the rest of the
spec keep fonts for warnings Italic, but don't Bold them -
line 2989: replace "If not, raise exception: object attribute
error" with "If not, raise exception: registry object
attribute error" -
line 3074: insert a new numbered paragraph after line 3074 For
every EmailAddressFilter XML element, the leftArgument attribute of any
containing SimpleClause shall identify a public attribute of the EmailAddress
UML class defined in [ebRIM]. If not, raise exception: email address
attribute error. The EmailAddressFilter returns a set of identifiers
for EmailAddress instances whose attribute values evaluate to True for the Clause predicate. ------Changes
in Section 8.4.2--------------------- -Delete
lines containing "Content-Transfer-Encoding" in example. -line
3583: Replace "CPP" with "Collaboration Protocol Profile" -bullet
@ line 3576: Replace: "... as the value of the Content-ID header field for
the mime-part that contains ..." With:
"... as the value of the
Content-ID header parameter for the mime multipart that contains... " -bullet
@ line 3578 Replace: "In case of [ebMS] transport, use the ID for each
RegistryObject instance that describes the repository item in the Reference
element for that object in the Manifest element of the ebXMLHeader." With: "In case of [ebMS] transport, use the ID of the
ExtrinsicObject instance in the Reference element for that object in the
Manifest element of the ebXMLHeader." -Added
at the end of the first paragraph of section 8.4.2: "Note that the boundary parameter in the Content-Type
headers in the example below are meant to be illustrative not
prescriptive." -Replaced
example in 8.4.2 -------------Changes in Section 9.2.2----------- -Bullet
@ line 3694 Replace: "The second through nth body part must be the
content." With: "The second body part must be the content." -Line
3695 Replace: "The packaging of the payload signature with one payload is
as follows:" With:
"The packaging of the payload signature with two payload is as shown in
example in <cross reference to 8.4.2 make sure it is hyper-linked>" -Example
at 3697-3792: Removed entirely since it is replaced by a example in 8.4.2. -Line
3804-3805 Replace: "The packaging of the ds:Signature element in the SOAP header field is shown below." With: "The packaging of the ds:Signature element in the SOAP header field is shown in <cross reference to
8.4.2 make sure it is hyper-linked>." -Example
at 3806-3828: Removed entirely since it is replaced by a example in 8.4.2. ------Section 9.3------- -Line
3793: After the 1st sentence "Message headers can be signed and
are referred to as a header signature." , add the following: "When
a request is sent by a Registered User, the Registration Authority may use the
pre-established contract or a default policy to determine whether the response
contains a header signature. .
When a request is sent by a Registery Guest, the Registration Authority
may use a default policy to determine whether the response contains a header
signature." -Begin
new paragraph with "This section specifies the requirements for
generation, ....." |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC