Re: [wss] [VER 2] OASIS WSS TC Minutes 2005-09-06 (with roll call)

[Jeff Hodges <Jeff.Hodges@neustar.biz>]

Paul Cotton wrote:
 > OASIS WSS TC Minutes 2005-09-06
 >
 > [VER 2]

<snippage/>

 > Issue 428
 > Frederick asked for more time at the last meeting but has not yet done
 > anything.  Since there is no concrete proposal we will change status to
 > Closed.

This issue actually had two nominal approaches - (a) allow for STR->STR 
references, or (b) unambiguously rule such references out, as Conor stated in 
this msg to wss-comment@...


Subject: recursive Security Token References
     * From: "Conor P. Cahill" <concahill@aol.com>
     * To: wss-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
     * Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 16:02:32 -0400
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss-comment/200508/msg00018.html

                          .
                          .
    "I think that at the absolute minimum there should be
    a statement about this case, perhaps saying it is out
    of scope for the specification -- although I would rather
    see this situation addressed."
                          .
                          .


I believe that there in fact was a reasonable concrete proposal made (by 
Thomas) in response, taking approach (b), in these messages to wss@...


Subject: RE: [wss-comment] recursive Security Token References
     * From: "DeMartini, Thomas" <Thomas.DeMartini@CONTENTGUARD.COM>
     * To: "Conor P. Cahill" <concahill@aol.com>
     * Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:45:34 -0700
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200508/msg00049.html

Subject: Re: [wss] RE: [wss-comment] recursive Security Token References
     * From: Jeff Hodges <Jeff.Hodges@neustar.biz>
     * To: wss-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
     * Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:55:15 -0700
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200509/msg00010.html



..and so I suggest we *not* close issue 428 with no action, but rather direct 
the editor to incorporate the language suggested by Thomas in his email message 
  (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200508/msg00049.html), and change 
the status of the issue to be "pending review".

JeffH