RE: [xacml] Specification number...

[Carlisle Adams <carlisle.adams@entrust.com>]

Title: Specification number...

Hi Daniel,

 

This was my preference as well, but others seem to feel that we need a way to distinguish between the two CSs.  To me, we could do this by date (i.e., CS v1.0 Nov. 7/02, and CS v1.0 Dec. 12/02), but perhaps some feel that this is not clear enough...

 

Carlisle.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Engovatov [mailto:dengovatov@crosslogix.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 2:44 PM
To: 'Carlisle Adams'; XACML TC
Subject: RE: [xacml] Specification number...

Why not just 1.0 all the way, even with further corrections.  These are just corrections, not a new standard.

-----Original Message-----
From: Carlisle Adams [mailto:carlisle.adams@entrust.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 11:25 AM
To: XACML TC
Subject: [xacml] Specification number...

Hi all,

On today's call we decided to change the number of the new Committee Spec. to 1.1 (since the version we approved prior to the start of the comment period was 1.0).  However, in several places in the spec we refer to "XACML v1.0", and all of our names (URIs) have "1.0" in them.  Ultimately, if we get to OASIS Standard, I assume that standard will be numbered 1.0.  This all seems potentially confusing.

Would it be any better to call this Committee Specification version 1.01, or 1.0a, or 1.0.1?  Any other suggestions or comments?

Please respond as soon as possible; I'd like to get the final version out today.

Carlisle.