[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [no subject]
Thomas *did* ask a question of the commentator which included a possible resolution to the issue but as far as I can tell this was never turned into an *actual* proposal.=20 I'd also note that Thomas was on the call on 2005-09-06, but didn't make a proposal during discussion of issue 428. I've cced Thomas in case his recollection doesn't match the minutes. Gudge > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Hodges [mailto:Jeff.Hodges@neustar.biz]=20 > Sent: 05 October 2005 17:43 > To: wss@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [wss] wrt Issue 428 >=20 > From the minutes of the 4-Oct-2005 concall (yesterday)... >=20 > Kelvin - for J Hodges - 428 "closed because no action proposed" > - Gudge to take AI to trace 428 and was Jeff's proposal on the > table when voted. >=20 > thanks for covering this Kelvin (and apologies for my having=20 > to drop off the=20 > call early). >=20 > To help Gudge out, the answer to the above AI is "yes" -- the=20 > proposal was on=20 > the table at the time of the 6-Sep call, the proposal was Thomas' (of=20 > 31-Aug-2005), and it all is documented in the forwarded=20 > messages below. >=20 > This is an admittedly detail-level item, but it is an=20 > identifiable loose end=20 > that was manifested in the public comment period and so=20 > should be properly=20 > dealt with. >=20 > thanks again, >=20 > JeffH >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [wss] [VER 2] OASIS WSS TC Minutes 2005-09-06=20 > (with roll call) > Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:17:25 -0700 > From: Jeff Hodges <Jeff.Hodges@neustar.biz> > To: wss@lists.oasis-open.org >=20 >=20 > Paul Cotton wrote: > > OASIS WSS TC Minutes 2005-09-06 > > > > [VER 2] >=20 > <snippage/> >=20 > > Issue 428 > > Frederick asked for more time at the last meeting but has=20 > not yet done > > anything. Since there is no concrete proposal we will=20 > change status to > > Closed. >=20 > This issue actually had two nominal approaches - (a) allow=20 > for STR->STR > references, or (b) unambiguously rule such references out, as=20 > Conor stated in > this msg to wss-comment@... >=20 >=20 > 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 >=20 > . > . > "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." > . > . >=20 >=20 > I believe that there in fact was a reasonable concrete=20 > proposal made (by > Thomas) in response, taking approach (b), in these messages to wss@... >=20 >=20 > 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 >=20 > Subject: Re: [wss] RE: [wss-comment] recursive Security Token=20 > 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 >=20 >=20 >=20 > ..and so I suggest we *not* close issue 428 with no action,=20 > but rather direct > the editor to incorporate the language suggested by Thomas in=20 > his email message > =20 > (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200508/msg00049.html > ), and change > the status of the issue to be "pending review". >=20 > JeffH >=20 >=20 > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [wss] wrt Issue 428 (was: Re: [wss] [VER 2] OASIS=20 > WSS TC Minutes=20 > 2005-09-06 (with roll call)) > Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 09:03:38 -0700 > From: Jeff Hodges <Jeff.Hodges@neustar.biz> > To: wss@lists.oasis-open.org >=20 > further explanation/clarification: >=20 > I was unfortunately not on the call - my prior message in=20 > this thread was not a > comment on the minutes per se. Rather it is a comment on the=20 > the decision taken > wrt Issue 428, as represented in the minutes. I feel said decision was > incorrect because there actually *is* a concrete proposal for=20 > resolving the > issue, as I explained in my prior message [1]. >=20 > JeffH >=20 > [1] Re: [wss] [VER 2] OASIS WSS TC Minutes 2005-09-06 (with roll call) > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200509/msg00055.html >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [wss] wrt Issue 428 > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:25:48 -0700 > From: Jeff Hodges <Jeff.Hodges@neustar.biz> > To: wss@lists.oasis-open.org >=20 > It appears from the draft minutes that issue 428 wasn't=20 > discussed on the call. > This is likely because it is shown as closed (incorrectly,=20 > imv) in the Issues > list, and I unfortunately was distracted (driving; apologies)=20 > when we were > going thru the open Issues post-334. >=20 > So, again, issue 428 was closed on the 6-Sep call, with the=20 > (incorrect) claim > that "..there is no concrete proposal", which I pointed out=20 > in this message.. >=20 >=20 > [1] Re: [wss] [VER 2] OASIS WSS TC Minutes 2005-09-06 (with roll call) > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200509/msg00055.html >=20 >=20 > and which I followed up on here.. >=20 >=20 > [2] wrt Issue 428 (was: Re: [wss] [VER 2] OASIS WSS TC Minutes > 2005-09-06(with roll call)) > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200509/msg00057.html >=20 >=20 > The gist of Thomas' suggested resolution [3] to 428 is.. >=20 >=20 > ..[edit lines in SMS Core] 903-904 as follows (removing=20 > things in {} > and adding things in [])... >=20 >=20 > "This optional attribute specifies an abstract URI for=20 > {where to find} a > security token. If a fragment is specified, then it=20 > indicates the local > ID of the [security] token being referenced. [The URI MUST=20 > identify a > security token. The URI MUST NOT identify a=20 > wsse:SecurityTokenReference > element, a wsse:Embedded element, a wsse:Reference element, or a > wsse:KeyIdentifier element.]" >=20 >=20 > ..yielding this revised text [4]... >=20 > This optional attribute specifies an abstract URI for a > security token. If a fragment is specified, then it=20 > indicates the local > ID of the security token being referenced. The URI MUST=20 > identify a > security token. The URI MUST NOT identify a=20 > wsse:SecurityTokenReference > element, a wsse:Embedded element, a wsse:Reference element, or a > wsse:KeyIdentifier element. >=20 >=20 > As I said in [1], I suggest we *not* close issue 428 with no=20 > action, but rather > direct the editor to incorporate the language suggested by=20 > Thomas in his email > message=20 > (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200508/msg00049.html), and > change the status of the issue to be "pending" (I had=20 > suggested a status of > "pending review", but that was apparently incorrect, the=20 > editor needs to make > the change before attaining the latter status). >=20 > thanks, >=20 > JeffH >=20 >=20 > [3] RE: [wss-comment] recursive Security Token References > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200508/msg00049.html >=20 > [4] Re: [wss] RE: [wss-comment] recursive Security Token References > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200509/msg00010.html >=20 > --- > end >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all=20 > your TCs in OASIS > at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgr > oups.php=20 >=20 >=20
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]