Action item status/questions (was Re: [security-services] Agenda fortoday's con-call)

["Eve L. Maler" <Eve.Maler@Sun.COM>]

Philpott, Robert wrote:
> **
> 
> *#0143*: Check SAML schema for consistency
> 
> *Owner*: Eve Maler
> 
> *Status*: Open
> 
> *Assigned*: 29 Apr 2004
> 
> *Due*: ---
> 
> *Comments*:
> Prateek Mishra 2004-04-29 21:49 GMT
> *** Follow-up: Examine SAML schema for consistent use of XML attributes 
> vs. elements

Note that this is also known as CORE-23: "Review Element vs. Attribute 
Choices (Open)".  I believe I've suggested that we consider this closed 
at this point, since we've done a bit of ad hoc cleanup already.  If 
anyone wants to comment on ways to make the markup more consistent, they 
should do it during last-call or forever hold their peace. :-)

> **
> 
> *#0144*: Explain optional subject decision
> 
> *Owner*: Eve Maler
> 
> *Status*: Open
> 
> *Assigned*: 29 Apr 2004
> 
> *Due*: ---
> 
> *Comments*:
> Prateek Mishra 2004-04-29 21:51 GMT
> *** AI: Eve: Optional subject implemented in core spec prose. Schema 
> shows that subject is optional.
> 
> o Eve: Has wanted to create a rationale for some of the decisions made 
> on spec. Decision on subject less statements is a good example of what 
> needs to be documented. Making an explicit design decision that is not 
> really explicit on. By choosing to add prose to core spec we're making a 
> stealth abstract profile (generic design decision) that applies to all 
> explicit profiles.
> 
> o Scott: data model (design) decision to require subjects in all SAML 
> statements.

I would very much like to write a document like this, but have to admit 
that it's unlikely I'll do it by the last-call or Committee Draft 
timeframe.  We don't consider this critical-path, do we?  I'm hoping to 
write something like the schema extensibility position paper that just 
discusses informally the schema choices, but it seems optional...

> **
> 
> *#0131*: Migration document describing changes to subject in SAML 2.0
> 
> *Owner*: Jeff Hodges
> 
> *Status*: Open
> 
> *Assigned*: 13 Apr 2004
> 
> *Due*: ---
> 
> *Comments*:
> Prateek Mishra 2004-04-13 04:31 GMT
> Explain how treatment of subjects have changed in going from SAML 1.X
> to SAML 2.0. This might be an action for Scott?

I've been assuming that non-normative documents like this do not 
necessarily have to be part of the last-call process, though it's ideal 
if they can be.  What do others think?

	Eve

-- 
Eve Maler                                        +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems                            cell +1 781 354 9441
Web Products, Technologies, and Standards    eve.maler @ sun.com