Re: [openc2-lang] OC2LS CS02

[duncan sfractal.com <duncan@sfractal.com>]

I donât think it materially changed the results of the discussion (we should have called it CS02 instead of errata). We still need to follow the picture in the norms doc, https://github.com/oasis-tcs/openc2-tc-ops/blob/master/images/versioning-concept.png , and make sure we have a release (that matches CS02) at https://github.com/oasis-tcs/openc2-oc2ls/releases  (although maybe we need one for WD15 as well) and we need to make sure that release (CS02) is in releases branch, and that the working branch is based on that release and ready for PRâs.

 

Who created WD15 and how did they to do it? Iâm pretty sure it wasnât me and I donât want to dork anything up. I obviously can pull https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/openc2/download.php/66144/openc2-oc2ls-wd15.zip from Oasis repo but I(as cochair)  think Drew or I (as editors) should talk to whoever made the doc we voted on, to tell exactly what state repo was in. We probably need to recreate the authoritative MD from github release branch (once we think itâs in correct state and same state as the output on /releases) and do a compare to make sure we are baselined at right point.

 

Duncan Sparrell

sFractal Consulting LLC

iPhone, iTypo, iApologize

I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at http://vsre.info/

 

 

From: openc2-lang <openc2-lang@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Toby Considine <Toby.Considine@unc.edu>
Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 8:04 AM
To: openc2-lang <openc2-lang@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [openc2-lang] OC2LS CS02

 

We got our feet tangled up in process and then stumbled in the meeting yesterday. Some points:

 

While Oasis Specifications (OS), Committee Specifications (CS), Committee Specification Public Review Drafts, Committee Specification Drafts (CSD) and Working Drafts are all numbered, the numbers do not necessarily have work in lockstep.

 

1. We have never released an OS for OC2LS. Therefore ever CS, every CSD, every WD is a step on the road to OS 1.0. There is no need to focus on 1.x  or 1.0.x or any similar numbering.
2. Every time we âfreezeâ the specification for looking, we create a WD. While I have never gone to 3-digit working drafts, they are not forbidden. I have been on TCs that published 2 and occasionally 3 WD a week. They would all be, in this case, OC2LS-01-WDnn.
3. Whenever we lock a draft with a vote, the TC can designate, by vote the TC can designate a named CSD.

 

This can end up with numbering similar to OC2LS-01.0-WD01, OC2LS-01.0-WD02, OC2LS-01.0-WD03 == > OC2LS-01.0-CSD01, OC2LS-01.0-WD04.

 

4. We can vote to release a CSD for public review, that is release a specific CSD as a CSPRD. Often these are numbered the same as the CSD, but that is only by chance.

 

The sequence above could continue, if the of CSPRD2 is released for public review as OC2LS-01.0-WD04, OC2LS-01.0-WD05, OC2LS-01.0-WD06  == > OC2LS-01.0-CSD02   == > OC2LS-01.0-CSPRD01, OC2LS-01.0-WD07. Note that these are all still documents on the way to 1.0

 

5. After a public review, we can vote to advance the CSPRD to a CSD. This is still a step on the road to a CS (although not always) There can be some options of the numbering of the CS.

 

The OASIS process only allows Errata only for Specifications S. Therefore we have no eratta document. What we produced was

 

OpenC2 Language Specification v1.0 Committee Specification 02. 

 

I hope this explains some of the confusion about the numbering process that was in yesterdayâs meeting.

 

tc