Minutes for 14 January 2010 TC Meeting - UPDATED

[Bill Parducci <bill@parducci.net>]

I. Roll Call
 Hal Lockhart (Chair)
 Bill Parducci (Co-Chair, minutes)
 Erik Rissanen
 Paul Tyson
 Gareth Richards
 Jan Herrmann
 Rich Levinson
 Dilli Arumugam
 Seth Proctor
 John Tolbert
 David Staggs
 Sridhar Muppidi
 
Voting Members: 12 of 14 (85% per kavi)

II. Administrivia
Vote to approve Minutes from 7 January 2010 TC Meeting
 APPROVED unanimously      

III. Issues  
 There is general agreement that sufficient time/communication has
 been put forth to consider the Acknowledgements list complete.

 The TC reviewed the current state of the issues addressed here:
 http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xacml/201001/msg00037.html

 Erik led the discussion through each of the issues with Jan on the
 call. Issues that were addressable in the scope of the current work
 product were resolved to the general satisfaction of the TC. Those
 that were deemed outside of this scope will be added to the Issues
 list for consideration in subsequent work.

 Rich requested that we postpone voting to promote to Committee Draft
 next week to allow time for final review and administrative
 preparation. The TC concurred with this. The vote will be held at
 next week's TC meeting.   

 Gareth raised a question regarding conformance. Hal offered the
 opinion that the Conformance section (Ch 10) of the Core Spec seems
 to minimally meet the requirements of the current TC process, even
 though the text is a hold over from 2.0 which predates those 
 requirements. Erik will request an opinion from Mary as to whether
 the conformance sections of all the documents are satisfactory.

 Currently there is just one conformance clause in Core which says
 you have to do all the mandatory things. It might be sensible to 
 have other alternatives, but the TC discussed this recently and 
 decided not to add to it.

 The issue of a PDP advertising what its capabilities is deemed a 
 separate issue from conformance. It is proposed that when the TC 
 write the Metadata spec we provide a more fine grained way to 
 advertise what features are available in a given deployment.

 A question was raised as to whether an implementation supporting
 the wire protocol, but not using an XACML compliant PDP, could 
 claim conformance to something in the spec. Hal took a quick look
 at the SAML Profile and offered the opinion that it was at least 
 possible to argue that this was allowed.

meeting adjourned.