Re: [openc2-lang] OC2LS CS02

[Bret Jordan <bret.jordan@broadcom.com>]

Toby, et al.,

You are correct. As a Board member I have been trying to clean up and make some of this easier to understand and remove weird language in the TC Process that makes this confusing.

Keep in mind the following:

1) the working draft numbers increase sequentially for any given specification until it reaches an OS.   

2) errata is only for an OS and errata can only have non-material changes (aka spelling, grammar, broken links, incorrect examples, etc). 

I created the following diagram of the process for releasing standards track documents at OASIS.   I also created this concept of a document landing page for OASIS. The landing page shows how all of the various released versions relate back to a working draft number. 

Attachment: TAXII Document Land Page Ideas.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Thanks,

Bret

PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447  F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050

"Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg."

On Apr 7, 2020, at 6:04 AM, Considine, Toby <Toby.Considine@unc.edu> wrote:

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

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature