Re: Ballot Attached - Group 3: Sessions

[Evan Prodromou <evan@outlook.net>]

>>>>> "OD" == Orchard, David <dorchard@jamcracker.com> writes:

    OD> I'm baffled.  I have always wanted explicit scenarios showing
    OD> differences between logout and timeout.  I originally wanted
    OD> to make the scenarios explicit to show logout/timeout
    OD> separately (and votable separately), hence my first
    OD> submission.

Wow. Well, I think I must have completely misread you, because to my
mind this:

       "[DavidO: Isn't this covered in UC-3-1? I've kept here for
        backwards compatibility]"

...means that the issue is to be voted on as a single entity, and that
the issue as stated is vestigial.

I'm confused why you didn't add separate scenarios for logout and
timeout under, say, UC-3-3 and UC-3-5?

[Note that I'm kicking myself for not getting to a Windows machine and
printing out your issues before late last week. I'm definitely the pot
calling the kettle black as far as editing is involved. B-)]

    OD> I was instructed to keep the numbering and use cases
    OD> roughly as is - specifically UC-3-1 session.  I didn't agree
    OD> at the time, but did it anyways, the 2nd /final submission.

OK, I guess we might have some miscommunication. I think issue group
champions should have every right to re-write the issues, within the
realm of good judgement.

That said, it's probably ill-advised to re-number issues
willy-nilly. Like, for example, re-using the same number for a
completely separate issue, or making up a new naming or numbering
scheme, etc.

*I* find issues that have been refined to the point where they clearly
delineate changes to the document ("Add the following requirement:
[R-Blah]" "Add the following use case scenario:") to be the most
useful. I think of them as patches that we either apply or not.

    OD> It now looks like a good thing because some people appear to
    OD> want session mgmt, but not logout and/or timeout.  This gives
    OD> us a mechanism to approve the topic, and then dive into the
    OD> details of what these mean.

I find that it means we're going to be going through a whole separate
round of issues, which kind of seems pointless.

~ESP