Re: [security-services] Minutes of SSTC Conference Call (October20, 2009) with roll

[Thomas Scavo <tscavo@ncsa.uiuc.edu>]

----- "David Staggs (SAIC)" <David.Staggs@va.gov> wrote:

>        (iii) SAML V2.0 Holder-of-Key Web Browser SSO Profile Version
> 1.0
> as a CS
>              SAML V2.0 Holder-of-Key Assertion Profile Version 1.0
>              - Due to errata when transitioning from CD to CS status,
>                these two docs need to move back to CD status.
> Nate states changes submitted reverted work to working draft 
> 
> MOTION
> Nate moves to move WD to CD. second (Tomas)
> MOTION PASSED
> Discussion: Changes determined non-substantive
> 
> MOTION
> Motion to request a ballot for special vote to make SAML V2.0
> Holder-of-Key Web Browser SSO Profile Version 1.0 into committee
> specification (CS) AND 
> that changes are non-substantive AND that schema and XML examples are
> valid.
> 
> Moved by Nate Second by Tomas
> MOTION PASSED
> 
> ACTION ITEM: Nate will produced CD in three forms.
> 
> ACTION ITEM: Nate will also we cross refence HoK assertion profile
> and
> Browser profile.
> 
> ACTION ITEM: chair to submit the request.
> 
> Scott- need cross referencing (see section 2.19)

I wasn't on the last call so I'm simply looking for a clarification with respect to the above motions. I don't see mention of "Designated Cross-Reference Changes" in the motion to take the CD to CS although I do see that Scott referenced the appropriate section in the TC process doc:

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process-2008-06-19.php#crossRefs

For the record, the two references that are to be taken as "Designated Cross-References" are references [HoKSSO-XSD] and [SAML2HoKAP] in specification "SAML V2.0 Holder-of-Key Web Browser SSO Profile Version 1.0" as noted in this diff that takes draft-13 to cd-03:

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/34964/sstc-saml-holder-of-key-browser-sso-cd-03-diff.pdf

When the CD is taken to CS (by tc-admin) we want to be sure these two references are updated, so we want to follow section 2.19 in the TC process carefully. As far as I know, this is the first time the SSTC has encountered this issue, so I'm documenting it here and asking that it be included in the minutes.

Thanks,
Tom