[security-services] RE: Minor Issue Status Issues - Close or Defer

[Hal Lockhart <hal.lockhart@entegrity.com>]

Title: RE: Minor Issue Status Issues - Close or Defer

Since there has been no discussion of these issues on the list, I assume that there is no Champion who wishes to see these issues deferred. Therefore I will recommend that UC-9-02, DS-3-03 and DS-5-04 be permanently closed.

Hal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hal Lockhart
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 10:18 AM
> To: security-services@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Minor Issue Status Issues - Close or Defer
>
>
> There are three minor points left from the last round if
> issue closing. Mostly this is debate between me and Jeff.
>
> UC-9-02 Privacy Statement. Last summer, we tried to formulate
> a statment about an asserting party's (particularly an
> Attribute Authority's) responsibility to provide the means to
> allow users to control the privacy of their attributes. Three
> different people offered wording, but neither the
> subcommittee or the TC could agree on any of them. As a
> result, no such statement appears in the specifications.
>
> I proposed that we CLOSE this issue on the theory that if we
> could not agree then and we have not discussed it since, we
> are unlikely to agree in the future.
>
> Jeff proposed that we DEFER the issue.
>
> DS-3-03 - Validity Depends Upon - This is about the inclusion
> of a ValidityDependsUpon element in the Conditions. I believe
> that Prateek was a champion for this and the intent of the TC
> was to defer it.
>
> I recomended that we DEFER it.
>
> Jeff recommended that unless someone was willing to argue for
> it, we CLOSE it.
>
> DS-5-04 - Request Reference - The full text of this is:
>
> There should be a way to reference an assertion as the
> subject of a request. For example, a request might reference
> an Attribute Assertion and ask if the subject of that
> assertion could access a specified object.
>
> I proposed we CLOSE this, it part because I thought I raised
> it originally and I don't remember anyone else saying they wanted it.
>
> Jeff proposed that we DEFER it.
>
> I don't feel strongly about the choice between CLOSE and
> DEFER for any of these, but I would like to avoid carrying
> forward issues that nobody is really interested in.
>
> Does anyone want to speak for DEFERRING any of these?
>
> Hal
>