Re: [security-services] Conformance handling

[Paul Madsen <paulmadsen@rogers.com>]

agree with Scott re document URLs.

I spent more time trying to work out what to put for the various URLs 
than for the actual editing of the latest Tech Overview

paul

Scott Cantor wrote:
> It looks like at least one convention being used for self-contained
> documents is to put conformance into a subsection in section 1 of the
> document, after the references. I guess this way you can state it up front
> and cover anything described in the rest of the document, so that's
> reasonable, I guess.
>
> I'm working on the next LDAP attribute profile working draft now, and then
> I'll change the rejected document(s) I submitted before to follow that
> approach.
>
> I would also like to get some kind of closure on the issue of where our
> documents are going to live. Having all these broken/non-working URLs in the
> header of our specs just looks bad IMHO. What we had before with a generic
> reference to the SSTC site was better than that.
>
> -- Scott
>
>
>
>
>   

-- 
Paul Madsen             e:paulmadsen @ ntt-at.com
NTT                     p:613-482-0432
                        m:613-302-1428
                        aim:PaulMdsn5
                        web:connectid.blogspot.com