Re: [security-services] PE78: Reassignment of persistent identifiers

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

For what it's worth, I do buy the arguments made on the call that the  
intent was there but not literally expressed, making a MUST NOT in an  
erratum okay.  (Others may still not buy it...)

	Eve

On Dec 2, 2008, at 11:15 AM, robert.philpott@rsa.com wrote:

>>> Well, MUST NOT is a stretch for an erratum (as pointed out by Eve on
>>> the call), and SHOULD NOT is not all that useful IMO, so perhaps a
> new
>>> format is needed, yes.
>>
>> Without disagreeing, a MUST NOT is fine in an errata if the spec  
>> meant
> to
>> say that and just didn't. Then you ask for input as to whether  
>> anybody
>> implemented or deployed based on assuming it wasn't a MUST NOT, and  
>> if
> not,
>> you're good to go. We've done it before.
>
> I agree w/Scott.  Adding a MUST NOT to clarify the SSTC's intended
> meaning is not unreasonable in the Errata.
>
> I don't recall the specific issue, but as he said, we have done it in
> the past.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>

Eve Maler                                         +1 425 947 4522
Principal Engineer                            eve.maler @ sun.com
Business Alliances group                    Sun Microsystems, Inc.