[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-sx] RE: WSSX TC Errata ready for public review
Mary, it looks like the ns policy in the templates is what the
TC agreed to. Is there anything else you need here? From: Marc Goodner Mary, I started belatedly looking at this and I can’t do
it. The new template has too much new content required, for example the NS
policy. Agree with the practice of keeping it here and I know we have one
around here somewhere but I don’t have it handy. Attached is the package
without RDDL. Is getting the RDDL inline with the new format something you can
do? Provided we send you the namespace policy text of course. J From: Marc Goodner
[mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] I’ll get to this with a revised package per our call this
morning by the end of the week. From: Mary McRae
[mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mary McRae Hi Marc, The first thing that needs to be done is to move the
namespace documents to the namespace template: http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/rddl.html I would then list – under “This
Version” – a second link noted as “[uri string] (errata
only)” Similarly, under “Additional Formats” – I
would list the alternate formats and then place a subhead “errata
only” followed by the appropriate URIs. Note that the Stage should indicate OASIS Standard Incorporating
Draft Errata. I think that would take care of everything. Regards, Mary From: Marc Goodner
[mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] Attached is the errata package, doc, pdf and html. I took a stab at the RDDL based on the current ones but I
wasn’t clear on where to reference the errata alone. There were also some
inconsistencies in that some referenced previous versions, other did not. Mary,
is that something you can clean up or do you need any input from me on that? From: Mary McRae
[mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mary McRae Hi Marc and Kelvin, Everything seems to be in order – the last bit
though is that I need PDFs and HTML versions of at least the stand-alone
versions. Do you want me to generate or can you supply? Thanks, Mary From: Marc Goodner
[mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] The TC approved these updated drafts today: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-sx/200804/msg00045.html Note that I also updated the schema errata files just to get
consistency in the file names (no other changes). http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-sx/download.php/28150/ws-trust-1.3-errata-cd-01.xsd
From: Marc Goodner
[mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] Thanks Mary, all of these comments have been addressed in the
drafts uploaded this morning. The one exception is number 5 for SC. That is listed under
Normative Errors and was determined by the TC to be a mistake. See issue ER017,
the proposal that was adopted covers this. http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/issues/Issues.xml#ER017 http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-sx/200712/msg00003.html Updated documents: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-sx/download.php/28147/ws-trust-1.3-errata-cd-01.doc From: Mary McRae
[mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mary McRae Hi Kelvin, Here’s the list – basically the entire set of
documents appear to be Editors Drafts and all need to be updated to note
Committee Draft status and the date of approval. Additionally, the redlined OS versions
need to clearly identify that this version is *not* the OASIS Standard
but instead OASIS Standard (incorporating Proposed Errata) – which will
change to incorporating Approved Errata post public review and TC affirmation. WS-SecureConversation 1.
Should be identified as “Committee Draft” and show
the date of approval 2.
Filenames (in URIs) apparently reference Editors Draft (ed)
– not a problem since we don’t have any specific rules but appears
to be an oversight related to 1. Above 3.
Running footers need to be updated; page number placing
incorrectly 4.
The addition of a Conformance Section appears to result in a
substantive change. That is, if there were no conformance statements included
in the OASIS Standard, placing them in an errata places an additional burden on
use of the specification. 5.
The change to section 7.1 appears to result in a substantive
change (from SHOULD to SHOULD NOT) 6.
The redlined version is incorrectly identified as an OASIS
Standard – it should be OASIS Standard incorporating Proposed Errata
– Committee Draft and show the date of approval (1. Above) WS-SecurityPolicy 1.
Should be identified as “Committee Draft” and show
the date of approval 2.
Filenames (in URIs) apparently reference Editors Draft (ed)
– not a problem since we don’t have any specific rules but appears
to be an oversight related to 1. Above 3.
Running footers need to be updated; page number placing
incorrectly 4.
The redlined version is incorrectly identified as an OASIS
Standard – it should be OASIS Standard incorporating Proposed Errata
– Committee Draft and show the date of approval (1. Above) WS-Trust 1.
Should be identified as “Committee Draft” and show
the date of approval 2.
Filenames (in URIs)apparently reference Editors Draft (ed)
– not a problem since we don’t have any specific rules but appears
to be an oversight related to 1. Above 3.
Running footers need to be updated; page number placing
incorrectly 4.
Under “3. Normative Errors” recommend placing the
word “none” (as in WS-SecurityPolicy) 5.
The redlined version is incorrectly identified as an OASIS
Standard – it should be OASIS Standard incorporating Proposed Errata
– Committee Draft and show the date of approval (1. Above) Mary From: Kelvin Lawrence
[mailto:klawrenc@us.ibm.com]
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]