RE: [xacml] Specification number...

[Michiharu Kudoh <KUDO@jp.ibm.com>]

Hi, Carllisle

For the file name, I have another idea.
How about "cs-xacml-specification-01-1.doc" or "cs-xacml-spec-01-1.doc"?
"cs-xacml-specification1.0-1.doc" includes two periods that might make the
file name a little complex.
And SAML also avoids that notation (cs-sstc-core-01.doc).

Michiharu

IBM Tokyo Research Laboratory, Internet Technology
Tel. +81 (46) 215-4642   Fax +81 (46) 273-7428




|---------+---------------------------->
|         |           Carlisle Adams   |
|         |           <carlisle.adams@e|
|         |           ntrust.com>      |
|         |                            |
|         |           2002/12/13 05:07 |
|         |                            |
|---------+---------------------------->
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                                                              |
  |       To:       "'bill parducci'" <bill.parducci@overxeer.com>, XACML TC <xacml@lists.oasis-open.org>        |
  |       cc:                                                                                                    |
  |       Subject:  RE: [xacml] Specification number...                                                          |
  |                                                                                                              |
  |                                                                                                              |
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|



Hi Bill,


I like this suggestion!


Unless I hear any violent objections, I will make the name of the document
"Committee Specification 1.0 (Revision 1), 12 December 2002" and make its
document identifier "cs-xacml-specification-1.0-1.doc".


Carlisle.





-----Original Message-----
From: bill parducci [mailto:bill.parducci@overxeer.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 2:56 PM
To: XACML TC
Subject: Re: [xacml] Specification number...





i think "1.x" will continue to have the same level of confusion regardless
of the numeration construct. how about:


"XACML v1.0, Specification Candidate 1 (2,3,4)"
or
"XACML v1.0, Editorial Version 1 (2,3,4)"


this way the spec 'version' never changes, just the editorial numbering
(which will be discarded once submitted and approved).


b


Carlisle Adams wrote:
> 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.
>





----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>