[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-sx] Re: WSSX Requests a public review please
Hi Mary, You didn't miss anything. Sorry for the delay, but I have been tied up with other activities that have prevented me from addressing the issues until now. I have uploaded a new .zip file that should contain all the required changes that you described in this email: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-sx/200904/msg00013.html However, one thing I did not know how to do was put the link in the document to the current and latest versions on the front page, which I assume would be the address given to the doc after I uploaded it ? :). Please let me know if there are any additional changes required, and there should not be anymore long delays. Thanks, Rich Mary McRae wrote: > Just checking in to make sure I haven't missed a message ... any > progress? If I missed it, my sincere apologies and please resend! > > thanks, > > Mary > > Mary P McRae > Director, Standards Development > Technical Committee Administrator > OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society > email: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org > web: www.oasis-open.org > twitter: fiberartisan #oasisopen > phone: 1.603.232.9090 > > Standards are like parachutes: they work best when they're open. > > > > > > > > > On Apr 29, 2009, at 9:27 PM, Mary McRae wrote: > >> Hi Rich, >> >> There's still a few problems - firstly, the cover page isn't right >> with regard to placement of date and stage, and all 3 document >> formats must be listed and hypertext linked - it appears that all the >> hypertext links that should be on the cover page are non-existent; >> not sure how they disappeared. >> >> The notices section uses a copyright of 1993-2007; you likely want to >> update this to just 2009 unless this document was published in the past? >> >> All references must be declared as either normative or non-normative >> in section 1; yet there is a list of references in section 3 (must be >> moved and properly classified) >> >> Section 1 Introduction seems to have completely lost its formatting >> (major heading style and designation); 2nd and 3rd-level heads >> intermittently seem to be causing page breaks. I've just installed >> Office 2007 SP2 so I don't know if I'm seeing something different >> than you are - it's certainly possible! >> >> The Acknowledgements section seems very outdated (noting Hal and >> Symon from BEA for instance) and should be checked for accuracy. >> >> I could fix it, but I don't want to mess with the references. >> >> Sorry for not looking more closely the first time around. >> >> Regards, >> >> Mary >> >> Mary P McRae >> Director, Standards Development >> Technical Committee Administrator >> OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society >> email: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org >> web: www.oasis-open.org >> twitter: fiberartisan #oasisopen >> phone: 1.603.232.9090 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 27, 2009, at 10:21 PM, Rich.Levinson wrote: >> >>> Hi Mary, >>> >>> We may have had a coordination issue closing the loop on this. In >>> any event, the current state is that the document has been updated >>> to include a conformance section indicating that there are no >>> conformance requirements, along with some explanatory text: >>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=32098&wg_abbrev=ws-sx >>> >>> >>> The above link is to the details page, which describes at the bottom >>> that the doc is updated with said conformance section plus the fact >>> that no "red-lining" remains. >>> >>> In addition, we are suggesting that the text below from the document >>> abstract might be used as the "paragraph to be included with the >>> review note" (possibly indicating that the refs in the para may be >>> followed by going to the document abstract within the doc). >>> >>> Please let me (us) know if there is anything else needed to move >>> this ahead. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Rich >>> >>> Suggested text for "paragraph to be included with the review note": >>> >>> "This document contains examples of how to set up WS-SecurityPolicy >>> [WSSP] policies for a variety of common token types that are >>> described in WS-Security 1.0 [WSS10] and WS-Security 1.1 [WSS11] >>> token profiles [WSSTC]. Particular attention is focused on the >>> different "security bindings" (defined in [WSSP]) within the example >>> policies. Actual messages that have been documented in WS-Security >>> TC [WSSTC]and other WS-Security-based Interops [WSSINTEROPS, >>> WSSXINTEROPS, OTHERINTEROPS] that conform to some of the example >>> policies are referenced when appropriate. >>> The purpose of this document is to give examples of how policies may >>> be defined for several existing use cases that have been part of the >>> WS-Security Interops that have been conducted (see References >>> section for Interop documents [INTEROPS]). In addition, some example >>> use cases have been included which show some variations from the >>> WS-Security Interop use cases in order to demonstrate how different >>> options and security bindings impact the structure of the policies." >>> >>> Mary McRae wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Kelvin, >>>> >>>> No, there's no conformance section (should be Section 4). It's >>>> perfectly acceptable to write a conformance section indicating that >>>> there are no conformance requirements, or that one should refer to >>>> the actual spec for conformance requirements, as appropriate. >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> Mary >>>> >>>> Mary P McRae >>>> Director, Technical Committee Administration >>>> OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society >>>> email: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org >>>> web: www.oasis-open.org >>>> twitter: fiberartisan >>>> phone: 1.603.232.9090 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 13, 2009, at 5:27 PM, Kelvin Lawrence wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Mary, thanks for the fast response. What the TC would like to >>>>> do is get this work as far as CS and leave it there. So I believe >>>>> therefore we need the 60 day review. Sorry that I was not clearer >>>>> on that. >>>>> >>>>> I thought we had added the conformance section, if we are missing >>>>> it (and need it) we'll take that to-do. >>>>> >>>>> We (the TC) can try and quickly work up a paragraph of >>>>> explanatory text for you . >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> Kelvin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Mary McRae <marypmcrae@gmail.com> >>>>> To: Kelvin Lawrence/Austin/IBM@IBMUS >>>>> Cc: ws-sx@lists.oasis-open.org >>>>> Date: 04/13/2009 01:42 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: WSSX Requests a public review please >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Kelvin. >>>>> >>>>> Is this a 60-day review and something that will be advancing to >>>>> CS status or just something that will stay at CD (which means you >>>>> don't need conformance section and you have an arbitrary review >>>>> time)? Would you like to write a paragraph to be included in the >>>>> review note? >>>>> >>>>> Mary >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 13, 2009, at 2:16 PM, Kelvin Lawrence wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Mary, >>>>> >>>>> The WSSX TC has recently approved an examples document and set of >>>>> sample files as a committee draft and would like a public review >>>>> conducted to give the OASIS members a chance to give their >>>>> feedback. We felt that these documents would help others with >>>>> better understanding our normative specs that are already OASIS >>>>> Standards. >>>>> >>>>> The ZIP file containing the documents is at [1]. Please let me >>>>> know if you need anything else from us. >>>>> >>>>> The meeting where we decided to ask for a review is minuted at [2] >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/31894/WS-SX-ExamplesDocAndInteropMessages-cd-01.zip >>>>> >>>>> [2] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-sx/200903/msg00006.html >>>>> >>>>> Cheers and thanks in advance, >>>>> Kelvin >>>>> WSSX TC co-Chair >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]